low-rise housing development in ankara a ...etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/12607341/index.pdfi i...
TRANSCRIPT
i i
LOW-RISE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IN ANKARA
A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF NATURAL AND APPLIED SCIENCES
OF MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY
BY
MÜZEYYEN ANIL ŞENYEL
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN
CITY PLANNING IN
THE DEPARTMENT OF CITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING
JUNE 2006
ii
Approval of the Graduate School of Applied and Natural Sciences
Prof. Dr. Canan Özgen Director
I certify that this thesis satisfies all the requirements as a thesis for the degree of Master of Science.
Prof. Dr. Melih Ersoy Head of Department
This is to certify that we have read this thesis and that in our opinion it is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of Science.
Prof. Dr. Ali Türel Supervisor
Examining Committee Members
Prof. Dr. Tansı Şenyapılı (METU, CP)
Prof. Dr. Ali Türel (METU, CP)
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Oğuz Işık (METU, CP)
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Hülagü Kaplan (Gazi Univ., CP)
Asst. Prof. Dr. Nil Uzun (METU, CP)
iii iii
PLAGIARISM
I hereby declare that all information in this document has been obtained and
presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct. I also
declare that, as required by these rules and conduct, I have fully cited and
referenced all material and results that are not original to this work.
Name, Last name : Müzeyyen Anıl ŞENYEL
Signature :
iv iv
ABSTRACT
LOW-RISE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IN ANKARA
ŞENYEL, Müzeyyen Anıl
M.S., Department of City and Regional Planning in City Planning
Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Ali TÜREL
June 2006, 215 pages
Urban land prices have important effects on urban development and locational
distribution of land-uses. Housing is one of those sectors. There are high-density
residential areas covering high-rise apartments at the city center where the land
prices are quite high. Here, sizes of the plots and the housing units are relatively
small. However, land prices begin to decrease with the increasing distance from
the city center and the production of low-density, low-rise housing which is
economically unfeasible at the center turns to be feasible for the housebuilders at
the outskirts.
Low-rise houses at the urban fringe provides various opportunities for the
households. In these areas, plots and housing units are relatively larger due to
cheap and available land. In addition to this, better urban services, quiet and clean
environment as well as privacy contribute to create a livable urban environment.
However, households living in low-rise housing units are subject to high
transportation and maintenance costs. It is expected that they would compensate
these costs with larger housing units, prestigious urban environment and many
opportunities that their neighborhoods offer.
v v
Urbanization processes may be differ from one country to another with respect to
the socio-economic and political structures, and the environmental characteristics.
In that sense, low-rise housing areas at the urban fringe of Ankara were found to
be developed highly compatible with urban land use theories; but different from
the processes experienced in developed countries, to some extent. With regard to
these, low-rise housing development in Ankara is discussed according to plan
decisions, housebuilders, households and urban development pattern, considering
the theoretical basis and historical processes.
Key Words: Low-rise Housing, Suburbanization, Urban Development in Ankara,
Rationality of Housebuilder, Rationality of Household, Floor Area Ratio
vi vi
ÖZ
ANKARA’DA AZ KATLI KONUT GELİŞİMİ
ŞENYEL, Müzeyyen Anıl
Yüksek Lisans, Şehir ve Bölge Planlama Bölümü, Şehir Planlama
Tez Yöneticisi: Prof. Dr. Ali TÜREL
Haziran 2006, 215 sayfa
Kentsel arazi fiyatlarının, kentsel gelişim ve kentteki sektörlerin mekansal
dağılımına önemli etkileri vardır. Konut da bu sektörlerden biridir. Kentsel arazi
fiyatlarının oldukça yüksek olduğu kent merkezinde, çok-katlı apartmanları
kapsayan yüksek yoğunluklu konut alanları yer alır. Burada arsaların ve
konutların alanı, arazi fiyatlarının yüksek olmasına bağlı olarak görece küçüktür.
Ancak kent merkesinden uzaklaşıkça kentsel arsa değerleri de düşmeye başlar ve
merkezde üretilmesi konut yapımcıları açısından ekonomik anlamda mümkün
olmayan düşük yoğunluklu, az katlı konut alanları kent çeperinde üretilebilir hale
gelir.
Kent çeperindeki az katlı konutlar, konut kullanıcılarına çeşitli olanaklar sunar.
Bu alanlarda arazinin ucuz ve elde edilebilir olmasına bağlı olarak arsa ve
konutlar görece büyüktür. Ayrıca nitelikli kentsel servis olanakları, sakin ve temiz
çevre ile mahremiyetin korunması yaşanabilir bir kentsel çevre yaratılmasına katkı
sağlar. Fakat buradaki az katlı konut alanlarında yaşayanlar, yüksek ulaşım ve
konut bakım maliyetlerine katlanmak durumundadır. Hanehalkının, bu tür
vii vii
masrafları, daha geniş bir konut, prestijli bir çevre ve konut alanlarının sunduğu
çeşitli olanaklarla telafi etmesi beklenir.
Kentleşme süreçleri, her ülkenin ve kentin sosyo-ekonomik ve politik yapısı ile
çevresel özelliklerine bağlı olarak farklılık gösterebilir. Bu bağlamda, Ankara kent
çeperindeki az katlı konut alanları, kentsel arazi kullanımları teorilerine büyük
ölçüde uyumlu, ancak gelişmiş ülkelerdeki süreçlerden bir ölçüde farklı bir
şekilde gelişmiştir. Bu çerçevede Ankara kentindeki az katlı konut gelişimleri
teorik esaslar ve tarihsel süreçler de göz önünde bulundurularak; plan kararları,
konut üreticileri, konut kullanıcıları ve gelişim deseni açısından incelenmektedir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Az Katlı Konut, Banliyöleşme, Ankara’da Kentsel Gelişim,
Konut Üreticisinin Rasyonelitesi, Konut Kullanıcısının Rasyonelitesi, Emsal
viii viii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor Prof. Dr. Ali
TÜREL for his guidance, stimulating suggestions and contributions throughout
this study.
I am thankful to my jury members Prof. Dr. Tansı ŞENYAPILI, Assoc. Prof. Dr.
Oğuz IŞIK, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Hülagü KAPLAN and Asst. Prof. Dr. Nil UZUN for
their valuable critics and inspiring comments.
I should also thank to the Yenimahalle Municipality, the Gölbaşı Municipality and
Türkkonut for providing convenient atmosphere to study and sharing their
archives.
I offer my greatest thanks to my family for their support, understanding and
encouragements at all aspects of my life. My gratitude can never be enough.
I am also grateful to my friends for their continuous support and criticisms at all
times. I want to express my special thanks to Berkay Demirkan and Başak Uçar
for their technical assistances.
ix ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PLAGIARISM ....................................................................................................... iii
ABSTRACT........................................................................................................... iv
ÖZ .......................................................................................................................... vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................... viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS....................................................................................... ix
LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................. xv
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................... xxi
INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................1
1.1 The Aim and the Subject of the Study ...................................................... 1
1.2 Method of the Study.................................................................................. 4
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND OF LOW-RISE HOUSING........................7
2.1 Urban Economic Approach: Housing and Theories of Land Rent ........... 7
2.1.1 Classical Approach to Land Rent....................................................... 7
2.1.2 Monocentric Urban Model................................................................. 9
2.1.3 Land Rent Theory with respect to the Monocentric Urban Model .. 10
2.1.4 Spatial Arrangement of Different Sectors........................................ 10
2.1.5 Housing Demand and Household Equilibrium ................................ 13
2.1.5.1 Individual Equilibrium of the Household in Alonso’s Model .. 13
2.1.5.2 Housing-Price Functions and Locational Equilibrium of
Households According to Muth ............................................................ 16
2.1.5.3 Households’ Utility Function.................................................... 18
2.1.5.4 Households’ Considerations...................................................... 21
2.1.6 Supply of Housing and Producer Rationality................................... 22
x x
2.1.6.1 Production Function of the Housebuilder ................................. 23
2.1.6.2 Factor Substitution in the City and Declining Residential
Densities with Increasing Distance from the CBD ............................... 24
2.1.6.3 Optimum Density Problem ....................................................... 26
2.1.6.4 Housebuilders’ Considerations ................................................. 28
2.1.7 The Effects of Population Growth, Household Income and
Transportation on Housing........................................................................ 29
2.1.7.1 The Effect of Population Growth on Urban Space ................... 30
2.1.7.2 Income Effect on Locational Choice of Housing...................... 31
2.1.7.3 The Effects of Transportation Improvements on Urban Space. 33
2.2 A Critical Review of Housing and Land Rent Theories ......................... 34
HISTORY OF LOW-RISE HOUSING IN DEVELOPED COUNTRIES........38
3.1 Historical Background and Transformations Affecting the (Sub)Urban
Form .............................................................................................................. 38
3.1.1 The Effect of Industrial Revolution on Cities .................................. 39
3.1.1.1 Mass Migration Challenging the Early Industrial City ............. 39
3.1.1.2 The Effects of Technological Improvements and the Emergence
of Electric Streetcar Suburbs (1880s - 1920s)....................................... 41
3.1.2 The Repercussions of the First World War (1920s - 1940s) on Urban
Areas: Postwar Suburban Boom ............................................................... 42
3.1.2.1 Motor Age Suburbs ................................................................... 42
3.1.2.2 Decentralization of Commerce, Industry and Business ............ 43
3.1.3 Restructuring of Cities after the Second World War (1950s - 1980s)
................................................................................................................... 43
3.1.4 The Effect of Globalization: from Metropolitan Urbanism to Post-
Metropolitan Urbanism ............................................................................. 47
3.1.4.1 Urban Restructuring during the 1980s and Metropolitanization47
3.1.4.2 Beyond Metropolitanization...................................................... 49
3.2 Concluding Remarks............................................................................... 50
xi xi
LOW-RISE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IN TURKEY WITH RESPECT TO
URBANIZATION AND URBAN DECENTRALIZATION............................51
4.1 Urbanization and Urban Decentralization in Turkey .............................. 51
4.1.1 19th Century Urban Form during the Ottoman Empire .................... 51
4.1.2 Urbanization after the Proclamation of the Turkish Republic (1923 –
1950s)........................................................................................................ 52
4.1.3 Urbanization Following the Post-War Years (1950s - 1980s) ......... 53
4.1.3.1 Industrialization by the 1950s and the Mass Migration from
Rural to Urban....................................................................................... 54
4.1.3.2 Urban Expansion by the 1950s and the Rising Problem: Squatter
Housing (Gecekondu)............................................................................ 55
4.1.3.3 Government Interventions in terms of Laws and Financial
Regulations............................................................................................ 57
4.1.3.4 Concluding Remarks on Urban Development in Turkey in the
1950 – 1980 period and a Comparison of Turkey with the Industrialized
Countries ............................................................................................... 58
4.1.4 Housing Policies Affecting the Urban Fringe after the 1980s ......... 60
4.1.4.1 Housing Sector Crisis in the early 1980s .................................. 60
4.1.4.2 Execution of the Mass Housing Acts and the Boom of Housing
Cooperatives after mid-80s ................................................................... 62
4.1.4.3 Introduction of the Amnesty Law and Its repercussions on Urban
Land....................................................................................................... 65
4.1.4.4 Review of Urbanization throughout the 1980s ......................... 65
4.1.5 The Effect of Liberal Policies and the Former Transition Period on
Urban Sphere after the 1990s.................................................................... 66
4.1.5.1 The Rise of the Private Sector................................................... 67
4.1.5.2 The Rise of Gated Communities ............................................... 69
4.1.5.3 Current Problems Confronting the Urban Areas....................... 70
xii xii
4.1.6 The Composition of Housing Supply in Turkey by the end of the
1990s with regard to Building Attributes, Occupancy and House Builder
Characteristics ........................................................................................... 71
4.1.6.1 Housing Production in the last Decade ..................................... 71
4.1.6.2 Household Attributes ................................................................ 74
4.2 Concluding Remarks............................................................................... 78
LOW-RISE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IN ANKARA................................80
5.1 Urban Development in Ankara ............................................................... 80
5.1.1 The Early Republican Period (1923-1932) ...................................... 80
5.1.2 The Period of Jansen Plan (1932-1957) ........................................... 81
5.1.3 The Period of Yücel-Uybadin Plan (1957-1969) ............................. 84
5.1.3.1 The Consequences of Yücel-Uybadin Plan............................... 88
5.1.4 The Period of Ankara Metropolitan Plan Bureau (1969-1984) ....... 88
5.1.4.1 Mass Housing Developments during the 1970s........................ 89
5.1.5 The Period of the Greater Ankara Municipality .............................. 96
5.1.5.1 Mass Housing Projects and the Development of the South-
western Corridor.................................................................................... 98
5.1.5.2 Urban Redevelopment Projects............................................... 103
5.1.5.3 Urban Development after the 1990s ....................................... 103
5.1.6 The Composition of Housing Supply in Ankara by the end of the
1990s with regard to Building Attributes, Occupancy, House Builder
Characteristics and Household Preferences ............................................ 106
5.1.6.1 Housing Production................................................................. 106
5.1.6.2 Spatial Distribution of Population........................................... 112
5.1.6.3 Housing Characteristics, Household and Housebuilder Attributes
............................................................................................................. 114
5.2 Critical Review of (Sub)Urban Development in Ankara...................... 120
5.3 Concluding Hypotheses ........................................................................ 122
xiii xiii
LOW-RISE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS ON THE SOUTH-WESTERN
AND SOUTHERN PARTS OF ANKARA: A FURTHER STUDY ON
ÇAYYOLU AND GÖLBAŞI ..........................................................................124
6.1 Urban Development on the South-western Part of the City along the
Eskişehir Highway ...................................................................................... 124
6.1.1 Low-rise Housing Development along the Eskişehir Highway ,within
the Boundaries of the Çankaya Municipality.......................................... 125
6.1.1.1 Beysukent................................................................................ 125
6.1.1.2 Angora Evleri .......................................................................... 128
6.1.1.3 Beytepe 3rd Stage..................................................................... 132
6.1.2 Low-rise Housing Development along the Eskişehir Highway, within
the Boundaries of the Yenimahalle Municipality ................................... 133
6.1.2.1 Explanatory Values (Land Coverage Ratios, Floor Area Ratios
and Total Gross Area of Buildings) for the Developed and Developing
Parts of the Area.................................................................................. 136
6.1.3 Low-rise Housing Development along the Eskişehir Highway,
beyond the boundaries of the Greater Ankara Municipality: Temelli
Yenihisar Villakent Project ..................................................................... 145
6.2 Urban Development in Gölbaşı............................................................. 148
6.3 Floor Area Ratios of the Study Areas ................................................... 153
6.4 Evaluation of the Household Questionnaire ......................................... 154
6.4.1 General Characteristics of the Households .................................... 155
6.4.2 The Reasons that Motivate the Households to Move to their Low-rise
Houses in Çayyolu .................................................................................. 163
6.4.3 Evaluation of the Workplaces and Commuting ............................. 170
6.4.4 Acquisition of the Houses .............................................................. 180
6.4.5 Households’ Opinions about their Houses, and the Level of their
Residential Satisfaction........................................................................... 182
6.5 Review of the Household Questionnaire .............................................. 184
xiv xiv
CONCLUSION................................................................................................188
REFERENCES.................................................................................................197
APPENDIX A..................................................................................................206
Construction and Occupation Permits in the 1990-2005 period in Ankara 206
APPENDIX B ..................................................................................................210
A Sample Household Questionnaire ........................................................... 210
Section 1.01......................................................................................................213
Section 1.02......................................................................................................214
xv
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURES
Figure2. 1: Relation between rent and distance according to von Thünnen’s model
................................................................................................................................. 9
Figure2. 2: Diagrammatic structure of land prices ............................................... 10
Figure2. 3: Bid-rent functions and land use in the monocentric city .................... 11
Figure2. 4: Locus opportunities and indifference curve between q and z, when t is
constant ................................................................................................................. 14
Figure2. 5: Locus of opportunities and equilibrium indifference curve between q
and z, at a given t0 ................................................................................................. 15
Figure2. 6: Gains and costs of varying residential location.................................. 17
Figure2. 7: Linear housing-price function ............................................................ 17
Figure2. 8: Housing-price function with and without consumer substitution....... 18
Figure2. 9: The change in households’ equilibrium by moving from location A to
location B in an urban area.................................................................................... 20
Figure2. 10: Housebuilders production function with respect to the quantities of
capital and land ..................................................................................................... 24
Figure2. 11: Housebuilders’ factor substitution in the city with regard to land and
non-land inputs...................................................................................................... 25
Figure2. 12: Optimal FAR .................................................................................... 27
Figure2. 13: Increasing in the spatial pattern of urban housing prices with
population growth. ................................................................................................ 30
Figure2. 14: Bid-rent function and income........................................................... 32
Figure2. 15: Key housing-economy links: old view ............................................. 36
Figure2. 16: Key housing-economy links: emerging view ................................... 36
Figure 4. 1: Ratio of urban population between 1927 and 1980 in Turkey .......... 54
xvi
Figure 4. 2: Average mortgage interest rate and annual inflation rate between
1970-1992 ............................................................................................................. 61
Figure 4. 3: Total number of completed or partially completed new buildings and
extensions.............................................................................................................. 67
Figure 4. 4: Total number of completed or partially completed new apartments by
sector ..................................................................................................................... 68
Figure 4. 5: Completed or partially completed new houses by sector .................. 68
Figure 4. 6: Average interest rates, CPI (%) and inflation rates (%) in the 1993-
2004 period ........................................................................................................... 72
Figure 4. 7: GDP growth (%)................................................................................ 73
Figure 4. 8: Production of residential housing according to the construction and
occupancy permits................................................................................................. 73
Figure 4. 9: Number of households by type of the building including the dwelling
unit (Turkey-Urban) .............................................................................................. 74
Figure 4. 10: % of Households by ownership status of dwelling (Turkey- Urban)
............................................................................................................................... 75
Figure 4. 11: Method of construction of the building (Turkey-Urban)................. 75
Figure 4. 12: Percentage of households by satisfaction with their dwelling unit
(Turkey-Urban). .................................................................................................... 76
Figure 4. 13: Percentage of preferred type of building for living for those who are
not satisfied with their dwelling units (Turkey-Urban)......................................... 77
Figure 4. 14: The number of motor vehicles and automobiles in Turkey between
1992-2005. ............................................................................................................ 78
Figure 5. 1 : Jansen Plan ....................................................................................... 81
Figure 5. 2: Ankara Bahçelievler Housing Cooperative by Herman Jansen, 193683
Figure 5. 3: Uybadin-Yücel Plan, 1957 (urban development before and after 1950)
............................................................................................................................... 85
Figure 5. 4: Uybadin-Yücel Planı and gecekondu areas ....................................... 85
Figure 5. 5: The pattern of ‘Kavacık Subayevleri District’ in 1/5000 Plan which
was prepared with regard to the aerial photographs of 1970. ............................... 87
Figure 5. 6: Ankara Nazım Plan 1990................................................................... 89
xvii
Figure 5. 7: Batıkent Plan ..................................................................................... 91
Figure 5. 8: Aerial view of Batıkent...................................................................... 92
Figure 5. 9: Plan of Eryaman Mass Housing Area ............................................... 93
Figure 5. 10: Aerial view of Eryaman................................................................... 94
Figure 5. 11: Location of Or-An within the city ................................................... 95
Figure 5. 12: Topographical formation of Ankara ................................................ 98
Figure 5. 13: Positioning of Batıkent (1), Eryaman (2), Çayyolu (3) and Koru
Sitesi (4) within the Yenimahalle Municipality. ................................................... 99
Figure 5. 14: Implementation Plans of Çayyolu I and Çayyolu II. ..................... 100
Figure 5. 15: Aerial view of Çayyolu II.............................................................. 101
Figure 5. 16: Aerial view of Mesa Koru Sitesi ................................................... 102
Figure 5. 17: Aerial view of Konutkent .............................................................. 102
Figure 5. 18: A general view from Çayyolu ....................................................... 104
Figure 5. 19: Villas in İncek................................................................................ 104
Figure 5. 20: Residential developments around Gölbaşı .................................... 105
Figure 5. 21: Construction permits and occupation permits in Ankara in the 1990-
2005 period. ........................................................................................................ 109
Figure 5. 22: Construction permits and occupation permits for the single houses in
the 1990-2005 covering the municipalities within Greater Ankara Municipality
............................................................................................................................. 110
Figure 5. 23: Construction permits and occupation permits for the apartment
dwellings in the 1990-2005 covering the municipalities within Greater Ankara
Municipality ........................................................................................................ 111
Figure 5. 24: Comparison of 1970, 1985, 1990 and 2000 population censuses in
terms of population distribution with distance from the CBD in Ankara ........... 113
Figure 5. 25: Percentages of households by type of building including the
dwelling unit in Ankara....................................................................................... 114
Figure 5. 26: Distribution of households with regard to the number of stories by
type of building in Ankara .................................................................................. 115
Figure 5. 27: Percentages of ownership status of the dwelling units in Ankara . 116
Figure 5. 28: Percentages of households’ way of owning the dwelling unit in
Ankara ................................................................................................................. 116
xviii
Figure 5. 29: Percentages of preferred type of building for living in Ankara..... 117
Figure 5. 30: Car ownership levels in Ankara since 1935. ................................. 118
Figure 5. 31: Percentages of private car ownership in Ankara ........................... 118
Figure 5. 32: Mode of commuting in Ankara ..................................................... 119
Figure 5. 33: Percentages of the buildings including the dwelling unit according to
the type of housebuilders in Ankara.................................................................... 120
Figure 6. 1: Development plan of the Çankaya Municipality, Ankara ............... 125
Figure 6. 2: Location of Beysukent..................................................................... 126
Figure 6. 3: Ankara 85 Sitesi, Beysukent............................................................ 127
Figure 6. 4: Individually built houses in Beysukent ........................................... 127
Figure 6. 5: Locality and Urban Design of Angora Evleri.................................. 128
Figure 6. 6: Villas, Angora Evleri....................................................................... 129
Figure 6. 7: Row Houses and Point Blocks, Angora Evleri................................ 129
Figure 6. 8: Plan of Angora Evleri ...................................................................... 130
Figure 6. 9: The Plan of Beykent 3rd Stage ......................................................... 132
Figure 6. 10: Housing Estates Comprised of Low-rise Housing Units in Çayyolu,
within the Boundaries of the Yenimahalle Municipality .................................... 134
Figure 6. 11: Examples of currently occupied housing estates in Çayyolu ........ 137
Figure 6. 12: Plan of Beril Sitesi and photographs from Beril............................ 138
Figure 6. 13: Plan of Mesa Koru Sitesi and photographs from the Mesa Koru.. 138
Figure 6. 14: Developing Areas in Çayyolu: Yenikent and İlko Konutları ........ 139
Figure 6. 15: Subdivision Plan of Çayyolu Development Area (İLKO Konutları)
............................................................................................................................. 140
Figure 6. 16: İlko Konutları ................................................................................ 141
Figure 6. 17: Metiş Country Villaları.................................................................. 141
Figure 6. 18: Orun Sitesi ..................................................................................... 142
Figure 6. 19: Siyasal Sitesi.................................................................................. 142
Figure 6. 20: İshakağa Villaları........................................................................... 142
Figure 6. 21: Subdivision Plan of Yenikent ........................................................ 143
Figure 6. 22: Current Situation of Yenikent Bahçelievler Development Area ... 144
Figure 6. 23: High-rise Blocks in Yenikent ........................................................ 144
xix
Figure 6. 24: Location of Temelli-Yenihisar Villakent Project in Ankara
Metropolitan Area ............................................................................................... 145
Figure 6. 25: Model of the Temelli-Yenihisar Villakent Project ........................ 146
Figure 6. 26: Plan of Temelli Yenihisar Villakent Project.................................. 147
Figure 6. 27: 1/25000 Natural Preservation Plan of Gölbaşı .............................. 149
Figure 6. 28: Examples of currently occupied housing estates in Gölbaşı ......... 151
Figure 6. 29: Housing estates from Gölbaşı........................................................ 152
Figure 6. 30: Average FARs at the CBD and on the southern part of the city ... 154
Figure 6. 31: Ownership statuses of the households ........................................... 156
Figure 6. 32: Monthly rents of the houses........................................................... 156
Figure 6. 33: The type of the previous housing unit ........................................... 156
Figure 6. 34: Education of the Household Head ................................................. 158
Figure 6. 35: Education of the Household Head’s Spouse.................................. 158
Figure 6. 36: Employment status and occupation of the household head........... 160
Figure 6. 37: Employment status and occupation of the household head’s spouses
............................................................................................................................. 161
Figure 6. 38: Monthly income of households ..................................................... 162
Figure 6. 39: Private car ownership .................................................................... 162
Figure 6. 40: Correspondence between monthly income (YTL) and private car
ownership ............................................................................................................ 163
Figure 6. 41: City/country where the previous housing unit is located .............. 164
Figure 6. 42: Location of previous housing units in Ankara............................... 165
Figure 6. 43: Previous locations of the households before moving to Çayyolu . 166
Figure 6. 44: Number of rooms per housing unit................................................ 169
Figure 6. 45: Correspondence between monthly income and the number of rooms
............................................................................................................................. 169
Figure 6. 46: Workplaces of the household heads .............................................. 170
Figure 6. 47: Locational distribution of the household heads’ workplaces ........ 171
Figure 6. 48: Workplaces of the household heads’ spouses................................ 172
Figure 6. 49: Locational distribution of the spouses’ workplaces ...................... 173
Figure 6. 50: Household head’s mode of commuting ......................................... 174
Figure 6. 51: Spouse’s mode of commuting ....................................................... 174
xx
Figure 6. 52: Household head’s daily one way commuting time........................ 175
Figure 6. 53: Household head’s spouse’s daily one way commuting time......... 175
Figure 6. 54: Correspondence between monthly income and the mode of
commuting .......................................................................................................... 176
Figure 6. 55: Correspondence between occupation and the mode of commuting
............................................................................................................................. 177
Figure 6. 56: Location of the schools of children in Ankara .............................. 178
Figure 6. 57: Locational distribution of the schools of children ......................... 179
Figure 6. 58: Households’ way of acquiring their houses................................... 180
Figure 6. 59: Correspondence between monthly incomes and the ways of
acquiring the houses............................................................................................ 181
xxi
LIST OF TABLES
TABLES
Table 2. 1: Stages and stakeholders in the housing development process ............ 22
Table 2. 2: Perceived Importance of site selection criteria by housebuilders....... 28
Table 3. 1: Average Annual Growth Rates of Central City and Suburb Population
and of Manufacturing and Retailing Employment between 1940-1970 in USA. . 46
Table 3. 2: New Speculative housing – push and pull factors .............................. 48
Table 4. 1: The change in the number of authorized housing units from 1970 to
1980....................................................................................................................... 58
Table 4. 2: Distribution of Housing Cooperatives According to Years................ 63
Table 4. 3: Location of the Cooperative Plot ........................................................ 63
Table 4. 4: Location of the Cooperative Plot with regard to Administrative
Boundaries ............................................................................................................ 64
Table 4. 5: Population change in Turkey in the 1990-2000 period....................... 71
Table 4. 6: The increase in the number of residential and mostly residential
buildings, and the dwelling units in Turkey.......................................................... 72
Table 5. 1: Population change in Ankara in 1990-2000 period .......................... 107
Table 5. 2: The increase in the number of residential buildings and dwellings in
the 1984-2000 period in Ankara (within the boundaries of Greater Ankara
Municipality)....................................................................................................... 107
Table 6. 1: A Sample of the Building Block Number, The Area of the Building
Block and the Total Number of Housing Units of Different Types on this Building
Block ................................................................................................................... 130
Table 6. 2: The Total Building Areas of Cooperative Villas, Row Blocks (5-
storied) and Point Blocks (10-storied) ................................................................ 131
Table 6. 3: Housing estates covering low-rise houses and the total number of units
............................................................................................................................. 135
Table 6. 4: Household Sizes................................................................................ 157
xxii
Table 6. 5: Number of Children with regard to their Education ......................... 157
Table 6. 6: Working Population.......................................................................... 159
Table 6. 7: The most important reasons that motivate the households to move . 167
Table 6. 8: Floor Area Ratios of the Houses....................................................... 168
Table 6. 9: Plot Areas.......................................................................................... 168
Table 6. 10: Household’s way of acquiring the house with regard to the duration
of stay .................................................................................................................. 182
Table 6. 11: The Two Most Important Advantages of the Houses ..................... 183
Table 6. 12: The Two Most Important Disadvantages of the Houses................. 183
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Aim and the Subject of the Study
In this study it is aimed to reveal the low-rise housing development in Ankara
with respect to locational attributes, development rights, and household and
housebuilder characteristics.
In that sense, it is worth clarifying some concepts such as housing, housing sector,
low-rise house and apartment, initially. To begin with, housing is a special
commodity due to its heterogeneity, durability, immobility and expensiveness.
Households, on the one hand, perceive housing not only as a shelter but also as an
investment good. However, economic rationality is not the only factor that affects
their decision making, since they also seek for a livable urban environment and
good quality urban services. Housebuilders, on the other hand, try to maximize
their profits. Indeed, they intend to meet the housing demand while considering
the market issues.
Therefore, it can be argued that housing sector is directly affected from the
economic considerations of households and housebuilders. In addition to this,
externalities such as planning decisions, environmental issues, political and
macro-economic agenda, and technological improvements are influential on the
sector. Briefly, spatial housing is a multidimensional concept, which should be
discussed in a comprehensive framework covering a theoretical basis, the
historical background and local characteristics.
2
Since the study is about low-rise housing development basically, housing is
categorized in two groups: high-rise apartments and low-rise houses. Multi-storey
apartments cover dwellings which are owned or rented by different households
and the number of stories is generally more than 3. Indeed, in modern cities high-
rise blocks can be accepted as the residential reflection of centrally located
neighborhoods. On the other hand, low-rise houses are single buildings, each of
them are owned or rented by a household and the number of stories is equal to or
less than 3.
In the course of urban sprawl low-rise housing has been developed as the
residential reflection of suburbs. Therefore, in order to reveal the characteristics of
low-rise housing, it is important to discuss the suburbanization movement which
was initiated after the Industrial Revolution in developed countries. Drawbacks of
industrialization created a declined, congested and unhealthy urban core and
households started to move from the central neighborhoods to the outskirts. At the
initial phases high-income groups could be able to move, but afterwards, with the
help of technological improvements it became affordable for the middle income
groups to settle far from the city center.
Residential decentralization was followed by the decentralization of industry and
retail and the urban fringe started to take a new shape with the further expansion
of low-rise, low-density residential areas as well as other land-uses. Today,
suburbs do not have only residential characteristics due to the decentralization of
non-residential uses. They take a part in metropolitan system, working together
with the city center and other suburbs.
Urbanization and urban sprawl processes in Turkey are rather different from that
of developed countries. Low-rise housing development at the urban fringe was
realized in two forms, as unauthorized housing and authorized housing. The
former one emerged as a result of rural-to-urban migration at high rates. New
comers occupied the urban fringe, and soon after prominent cities of Turkey were
surrounded by the unauthorized housing areas of the migrants. Amnesty Laws, not
3
only legalized those developments but also increased urban densities, since low-
rise squatter settlements were replaced by high-rise apartments. Authorized
housing development, on the other hand, was realized primarily by means of mass
housing projects. Particularly housing cooperatives produced large scale low-rise,
low-density residential areas at the urban fringe, where the land is cheaper and
more available than the city center.
Urbanization history of Ankara is closely related with that of Turkey, but Ankara
reflects special characteristics in terms of being declared as the capital of the
Turkish Republic in 1923. The city was considered as the idealized model for the
cities of modern Turkey and urban planning was conceived as a tool to achieve
this aim. Therefore, it is worth discussing Ankara case with regard to the urban
planning experiences.
In the earlier phases of urban sprawl, low-rise housing development at the urban
fringe started with the unauthorized settlements of migrants in Ankara. Then,
particularly after the 1970s, legal developments started to flourish at the outskirts.
Urban decentralization began first along the north-western axis, and then the trend
continued along the south-eastern axis (especially in Çayyolu), generally by
means of mass housing projects which were undertaken by housing cooperatives.
After the 1990s Gölbaşı area, the southern part of the city, experienced a vast low-
rise housing development, as well. As a result of these, many people moved from
the centrally located neighborhoods to the new residential areas at the urban fringe
in the last few decades.
However, it is important to mention that outer-city developments cover not only
low-rise houses but also high rise blocks. Therefore, it can be argued that some
housebuilders, generally large-scale private firms, still find it profitable to build
apartments at the outskirts; while some others, generally housing cooperatives,
continue to produce low-rise houses.
4
Demand side of the sector, namely households, face with a trade-off when they
prefer to live at the outskirts. Indeed, living far from the city increases transport
costs while living in a single, low-rise house increases the maintenance costs, as
well. Therefore, it is expected that households compensate such costs with larger
housing units, better urban environment and privacy.
1.2 Method of the Study
The methodology is designed to explain the issue considering different aspects.
The study is comprised of five major phases. Indeed, the former three chapters
constitute an informative background for Ankara case while the latter two
chapters provide an explanatory framework to the issue.
First, a theoretical basis is put in terms of urban economics which describes the
land-use pattern and spatial housing. In that sense, urban land rent theories are
explained in terms of housing demand and housing supply. After stating the
economic rationality of households and housebuilders, the effects of population
growth, income and transportation on spatial housing are discussed.
Second, historical background of outer-skirt low-rise housing is explained in
developed countries in terms of important socio-economic transformations, and
technological improvements.
Third, urbanization and urban decentralization of Turkey are mentioned, and the
outskirt residential developments of Turkey and developed countries are
compared according to the urban expansion pattern, household groups,
housebuilder types and the scope of suburbanization. In this section, the data of
the Building Census, 2000 undertaken by Turkish Statistical Institute are used to
reveal the most recent composition of the housing stock in Turkey with regard to
building attributes, occupancy and house builder characteristics.
5
Fourth, urban development in Ankara is focused on. Planning experiences are
discussed and their repercussions on urban space are mentioned. Moreover
important housing projects, covering low-rise houses, are given in a chronological
order. Builders of these projects, residents, house types and particular
development decisions of these examples are denoted, as well. The data of the
Building Census, 2000 are used also in that section, to reveal the housing stock
composition and household characteristics in Ankara. Then, a set of hypotheses
are put considering the urban economic framework as well as local attributes of
Ankara:
Ho: Urban densities and accordingly floor area ratio (FAR) falls with
increasing distance from the city center for all types of housing. [1]
Ho: Outskirt developments comprise both low-rise housing units and high-
rise apartments together in Ankara which are compensated with lower
densities and better urban services when compared to the centrally located
neighborhoods. [2]
Ho: Households who are living at the low-rise housing units at the fringe
are expected to be the owners and generally families with children while
the unit is expected to be large in size having more than three rooms in
each unit. [3]
Ho: Households preferring the low-rise residential areas at the fringe are
expected to be the professionals and high-status managers with a good
educational background in general. [4]
Ho: Households, living at the low-rise housing areas at the outskirts are
expected to use the private car in daily commuting. [5]
Ho: Households are supposed to consider the distance between the house
and the workplace when they are deciding the location of their residences,
6
however living close to the workplace is not the only and the prominent
factor of the locational choice of the house. [6]
Ho: Households are expected to compensate the negative transport costs
and high maintenance costs of low-rise houses with intimacy, a prestigious
environment and better urban services. [7]
Ho: The main housebuilder group is expected to be the housing
cooperatives for the low-rise residential development while private
sector/speculative housebuilders continue to prefer building high-rise
apartment estates at the fringe. [8]
At the final stage, compatibility of these hypotheses with Ankara case is tested. In
that sense, south-western and southern parts of the city are determined as the case
study areas. Some descriptive statistics, such as floor area ratios, number of
houses and average sizes of the housing units, are presented for the low-rise
housing estates in Çayyolu and in Gölbaşı. In order to complement the study, a
household questionnaire survey was carried out in 20 randomly selected housing
estates in Çayyolu. The questionnaire was performed on 196 households and it
was aimed to reveal the characteristics of the households, the reasons that
motivate them to move to the low-rise houses in Çayyolu, location of their
workplaces and commuting behaviors, and the level of their residential
satisfaction. Eventually, previously mentioned hypotheses are tested with regard
to the facts provided for the housing estates and their relevancy by the
questionnaire results.
7
CHAPTER 2
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND OF LOW-RISE HOUSING
2.1 Urban Economic Approach: Housing and Theories of Land Rent
In this part, urban development and the subsequent urban sprawl will be discussed
by means of micro-economic approach1 which focuses on price and rent relations
as well as locational attributes of a property. In fact, economic perspective
constitutes an important understanding to the process. Therefore, it is worth
emphasizing theoretical formulations developed by different approaches.
In that sense, land rent theories will be explained successively in the following
part. First, the classical theories of land rent developed by Ricardo and von
Thünen will be mentioned to help the comprehension of high land values at the
city center. Afterwards, static monocentric urban models of Alonso and Muth will
be discussed. These models accept the central business district as the foci and
decreasing land values with increasing distance from the CBD. In addition to
these, demand and supply sides of spatial housing will be mentioned on the basis
of urban economic models. Finally, other variables affecting spatial housing
pattern such as population growth, income and improvements in transportation
would be denoted.
2.1.1 Classical Approach to Land Rent
Land rent is a key factor on spatial distribution of different sectors throughout the
urban space. Beginning from the classical economic approach, intellectuals and
economists proposed different arguments which aimed to explain spatial variation
1 Macro perspective is highly related to the market growth and dynamics, the effects of the overall economy, political conditions and demographic changes.
8
of sectors. Nevertheless, instead of a unique ‘theory of land’, there are many
related theories inquiring the nature and the cause of rent differentiation and its
effects on urban land.
To begin with, classical urban economy provides the basic features of the issue.
At this point, it is worth emphasizing Ricardo’s theory which concentrates on
fertility differentials. Ricardo’s theory is that land rent will equal the residual
revenue after re-numerating non-land factors of production; it is also
proportionate to the excess of fertility over that of the least fertile land in use
(Mills, 1972:42).
In the Marxian analysis of rent, on the other hand, main problem is the role of
capitalism on urban space. Urban rent is accepted as a component of wider
process in which masses of people act and struggle and where contradictions are
becoming more and more explosive (Bentivegna, 1985:191). It is obvious that,
Marxist analysis mainly stresses on the social relations and their repercussions on
city space.
Nevertheless, former approaches have been inadequate to reveal the different rents
within the city. They tend to undervalue the spatial aspect of the matter, since
fertility or social relations cannot be the only explanation of high land values on
urban space. Alonso stated that the early economists had little to say on urban
land (Alonso, 1964:4). When urban land is in question, spatial attributes should be
taken into account.
It was von Thünen who considered location concept for the first time2. After
substituting distance factor for fertility into Ricardian land rent theory, he
assumed that the lands surrounding the city in all directions have the same fertility
and production can be shipped straight to the city from any point with a constant
unit transport cost. Finally he concluded that the land rent indicates zero at the
edge which is the furthest land from the city center brought into production and it 2 In fact, Ricardo recognized the transport cost as an advantage factor for land; but he devoted his attention primarily to different fertility levels.
9
gradually increases linearly towards the city. Figure 2.1, in which R(u) indicates
the land rent per acre and u is the distance from the city, shows the linear relation
between the rent and the distance, according to von Thünen’s approach.
Figure2. 1: Relation between rent and distance according to von Thünnen’s model
Source: Mills,1972:42
In this model, proximity to the city center permits producers to economize on
transportation costs, which makes centrally located land more valuable than
distant land (Mills, 1972:43). Therefore, it is helpful to explain the high land
values at the city center. In fact, the model has been a turning point for urban
economics and constituted the basic principle of many re-interpretations for over
many years.
2.1.2 Monocentric Urban Model
On the basis of Ricardo/von Thünen model, approaches have been developed on
urban land. One of the most important of them is the ‘static monocentric urban
model’, which assumes that the city has a uniform space with a single center
which is named as the central business district (CBD). Alonso defines the land as
‘the featureless plain’ (Alonso, 1964:15) which means that all land is assumed to
have an equal quality. Moreover, all employment activities are assumed to take
R(u)
u
10
place at the CBD, so households are subject to commuting costs with respect to
their distance from the center.
2.1.3 Land Rent Theory with respect to the Monocentric Urban Model
The critical point is decreasing urban land rents with increasing distance from the
CBD in the monocentric urban model. ‘Perfect market condition’ and ‘rational
decision making’ are the basic assumptions. Alonso stated that, a price structure is
given which specifies a price for land at every location (Alonso, 1964:21). The
price of land decreases with increasing distance from the center. By expressing the
price structure in this manner, it is clear that when a location is chosen, a given
price of land is implied (Alonso, 1964:21). Figure 2.2 shows the diagrammatic
structure of land prices according to distance. The curve P(t) indicates decreasing
value of land (PL) with respect to distance (t) from the CBD.
Figure2. 2: Diagrammatic structure of land prices
Source: Alonso, 1964:20
2.1.4 Spatial Arrangement of Different Sectors
When the overall pattern of land-use is being discussed, it is important to
emphasize the locational distribution of different sectors. According to Mills a
sector is a set of institutions having the same rent functions (Mills, 1972:65). Such
a definition explains the spatial organization of sectors on urban land.
tDistance from CBD
P
P(t)
11
Firms rent functions are affected by their production functions, prices of non-land factors of production, and product demand functions. On the other hand, households’ rent functions are affected by their incomes, their tastes for housing, commuting costs and all other goods and services, and by the prices of consumer goods other than housing (Mills, 1972:65).
Firms choose a location considering the production and shipping of the
commodities in order to maximize their profits, whereas households choose a
residential location to maximize their utility and satisfaction.
Figure2. 3: Bid-rent functions and land use in the monocentric city
Source: O’Sullivan, 2003:184
Office bid-rent function
Manufacturer bid-rent function
Residential bid-rent function
Agricultural bid-rent function
Land per acre
Distance from city center uo um uh
Office district
Manufacturing district
Residential district
12
Transport costs are important components affecting the locational choice of the
sectors and the activities requiring high transport costs tend to locate close to the
CBD. Office sector, due to having the highest transport costs locates at the center
with the steepest bid-rent function. Office outputs are being circulated in the
market area, so the firms should be close to the CBD, in order to decrease the
transport costs. Then, manufacturing takes place with the second highest transport
costs and the second steepest bid-rent function. Residential sector occupies the
third ring with relatively lower transport costs and a relatively flatter bid-rent
function (Figure 2.3).
In addition to this, landowners play an important role in the spatial distribution of
sectors. They allocate their land to the sector which offers the highest rent in order
to get the largest return. Corroborating the statement, Muth denotes that most
theories of city structure take the CBD as the focal point about which urban
economic activity is structured (Muth, 1975:56). For that reason, the land around
the CBD is allocated to different users who would pay the highest rental. For
instance, banks and headquarter offices in which a very high capital-land ratio
may be efficient (i.e. skyscrapers) so that they can afford to pay astronomical rents
per acre (Richardson, 1978:287).
However, such a model represents a strict zoning of which effectiveness is
questionable in the real world. Although small in percentage, there are still some
residential areas very close to the CBD, having a high capital/rent ratio.
Moreover, commercial areas and manufacturing sector tends to decentralize and to
constitute new sub-centers at the fringe which would be mentioned in the
following parts. Nevertheless, as the monocentric urban model constitutes the
starting point and fundamental principles of the theoretical argument, such a
rough arrangement of spatial sectors seems to be manageable.
13
2.1.5 Housing Demand and Household Equilibrium
The demand for residential land derives from the demand for housing (Muth,
1975:59). Households’ preferences and willingness to pay for housing directly
affects residential land use and households’ consumption pattern throughout the
urban space. Indeed, households try to maximize their satisfaction in a residential
location among other goods and services. Therefore, after mentioning theory of
land rent, it is important to discuss housing demand and utility of households.
2.1.5.1 Individual Equilibrium of the Household in Alonso’s Model
Individuals tend to distribute their income among the optimum composition of
land costs, commuting costs and all other expenditures. A theory of household
location choice can be formulated as an extension of consumer behavior theory
(Mills and Hamilton, 1993:107). The equation reflects the individual equilibrium
of the household aiming to reach the highest level of satisfaction in terms of the
amount and price of composite good and land as well as the distance from city
center. Budget equation can be formulated as follows:
y = pzz + P(t)q + k(t)
where
y: income;
pz: price of composite good;
z: quantity of the composite good;
P(t): price of land at distance t from the center of the city;
q: quantity of land;
k(t): commuting costs to distance t;
t: distance from the center of the city (Alonso, 1964:21).
14
Equation shows how the individual may spend his money among the different
alternative ways, and it can be divided in three sub-equations, analyzing the
relation between two variables keeping the third one as constant:
With a fixed distance, consumers can make a preference between quantity of land,
and the composite good. The shape of the indifference curve emphasizes
diminishing marginal utility, while the intersection point reflects the consumer
preference (Figure 2.4).
Figure2. 4: Locus opportunities and indifference curve between q and z, when t is constant
Source: Alonso, 1964:22
The model also suggests a residential bid price curve representing different prices
for land that varies with respect to the distance while providing the constant level
of satisfaction to the individual (Figure 2.5). Infinite number of bid price curves
can be constructed for different individuals and different levels of satisfaction.
Consumer’s preference
q
z
Budget line
Indifference curve
q1
z1
15
Figure2. 5: Locus of opportunities and equilibrium indifference curve between q and z, at a given t0
Source: Alonso, 1964:60
In the equation, there is an individual (i), having an income (yi) and locating at t0
with a given price of land p0. The commuting cost is k(t0) while the price of the
composite good is pz. Indifference curve is drawn with regard to the following
equation:
yi - k(t0) = pzz+ p0q (Alonso, 1964:60)
Here, at the point (q0, z0) the resident yields the maximum satisfaction and the
equilibrium would be attained where the locus of opportunities and highest of the
indifference curves are tangent. Alonso states that the concept of bid price is
useful in that it permits a solution of individual equilibrium which combines the
indifference curve approach with an explicit consideration of land prices (Alonso,
1964, 71)
y-k(t0) p0
z0 y-k(t0) pz
z
I i,0
q
q0
16
2.1.5.2 Housing-Price Functions and Locational Equilibrium of Households
According to Muth
Households are obliged to incur additional transport costs by moving far from the
CBD. The question is how much is a household willing to pay in each distance
from the center? With a given quantity of housing, Muth explains the locational
equilibrium of households indicating gains and costs of varying residential
location, as follows:
-qpu = Tu
-pu / p = Tu / pq
where
q : quantity of housing purchased;
p : unit price of housing;
pu : the change in price per mile, which is negative;
Tu: the increase in transportation expenditure/mile(Muth, 1975:61).
In the equation, -qpu shows the saving on the purchase of a given quantity of
housing that results from a short move from the CBD while Tu indicates the
additional transportation expense incurred by such a move (Muth, 1975:61).
Muth assumes a linear housing-price function and the basic principle is the
consumption of the same quantity of housing at all prices (Figure 2.6). Here, the
equilibrium point cannot be u1 since the household has an additional income left
over (–qpu > Tu) for spending on other goods, at this location. Therefore, by
consuming the same amount of housing, he/she can move further from u1. On the
contrary, the household at u3 can move closer to the CBD since it cannot be the
best location for him/her, either. Only, u2, where –qpu = Tu, reflects the best
location, named as the household equilibrium point, where it is not possible to
increase the well-being of the household by changing the location.
17
Figure2. 6: Gains and costs of varying residential location
Source: Muth, 1975:62
For example, assume that there are identical dwellings (120 m2) in each location
in a city. At the distance 10 km. away from the CBD, the price of housing is 10
cent per square meter, daily. Then, the household will pay 12$ (120 m2 times 10
cent) for the dwelling which equals to 360$ (12$ times 30 days) per month. When
the household move further away from the center, the unit price of housing falls to
7 cent, with a monthly payment of approximately 260$. But transport costs
increase and 100$ left over is assumed to be transferred to monthly costs of
transport (Figure 2.7).
Figure2. 7: Linear housing-price function
0.0
0.1
10 20 40
0.35
Distance from the CBD (km)
Housing-price function
Price of housing per m2 ($)
-qpu
Tu
Dollars
u1 u2 u3 Distance, u
18
However, in the real world, all of the dwellings in a city cannot be identical.
Actually, consumption depends on the price of housing, and as the prices increase
towards the center, households could afford smaller dwellings. When a household
moves towards the center, greater increase in the price per square meter offsets the
fixed amount of per km decrease in commuting costs. Then, it can be inferred that
a convex housing-price function is more realistic than the linear one (Figure 2.8).
Figure2. 8: Housing-price function with and without consumer substitution
Source: O’Sullivan, 2003:180
In the housing-price functions, households have fixed budgets which are allocated
among commuting and housing costs. Thus, the trade-off between living in a
larger house (when the consumer substitution is being considered in the function)
as a result of paying a lower price per housing unit and increasing transport costs
have to be rationalized.
2.1.5.3 Households’ Utility Function
Households’ utility function can be formulated as an extension of consumer
behavior theory, by drawing indifference curves which indicate the preferences
Price function with consumer substitution
Price function without consumer substitution
20
0.07
Price of housing per m2 ($)
Distance from the CBD (km)
19
for housing services and non-housing goods and services. The main distinction
from the consumer behavior theory arises from the introduction of location choice
into the model.
Households maximize their satisfaction with respect to the consumption of
housing, goods, and commuting, subject to a budget constraint (Mills, 1972:60).
By subtracting commuting costs T(k.d) of a certain location (u) from income (Y),
income net of transport cost (M) is calculated which affects the decision of the
household where to live. Then, he/she allocates the remainder on housing services
and other goods in an optimum way to maximize his/her satisfaction.
Assuming that a family has a constant income and households are working at the
CBD. Price and floor space occupancy figures are reflecting the actual choices of
the household. Different transport costs are taken into account according to the
location. The equation can be formulated as:
Y = PZ.Z + PH.H + T(k.d)
Y - T(k.d) = M = PZ.Z + PH.H
where
Y : income;
PZ : price of all other goods;
Z: quantity of all other goods;
PH: price of housing;
H: quantity of housing;
k: unit transport cost;
d: distance from the CBD;
M: income net of transport cost.
For instance, a household wants to move a further location from the CBD. The
consumption pattern of the household changes as he/she has to allocate more
20
money for transportation. Increase in the share of transport costs result in a
decrease in income net of transport costs and therefore consumption of all other
goods diminishes, as well. On the other hand, the household can consume more
housing in the new location, since the price of housing is less than it was in the
previous location.
Figure2. 9: The change in households’ equilibrium by moving from location A to location B in an urban area.
In Figure 2.9, where dA<dB, it can be argued that when the household move away
from the city center (from A to B), consumption of housing services increases
while consumption of other goods decreases due to higher transport costs.
Meanwhile, the slope of budget line becomes more flattened, and the equilibrium
point of EB replaces EA.
Any given household face with the choice of residence can be thought of as balancing housing costs and transport costs in seeking best location. For a household to be getting the most it can for its limited income, it is first necessary that the additional
A B
CBdB
Z (Consuption of
Other Goods)
Budget Lines
EA
EB
ZA
ZB
HA HB MA/PHA MB/PHB
MB/PZB
MA/PZA
H Consumption of Housing
Indifference Curves
dA : u ; dB : u′ u′>u
d
21
satisfaction per dollar’s worth of expenditure be the same for housing and for all other commodities. The additional satisfaction derived from housing relative to that from other commodities varies inversely with the consumption of housing relative to other things, declining as more housing is consumed. Consequently, households living farther from the CBD would tend to live larger houses, other things being the same (Muth, 1975:61).
2.1.5.4 Households’ Considerations
Livable housing estates with well-designed and technologically equipped housing
units, beautiful landscape, qualified and efficient urban services are desired by the
households. Carmona put the main items affecting the households’ decisions as:
1. Price and value
2. Locality
3. Estate (urban design)
4. House design
5. Livability
6. Features
7. Construction. (Carmona, 2001:120)
Here, locality is the second most considered feature for the households, but
residents are also interested in the design qualities, services, structural and
environmental features. With respect to the ranking, suburban settlements with
relatively quite, safe and village like environment seems to be attractive for
individuals who escape from the city center with high levels of pollution,
congestion and crime. Another important point is that the house buyers also pay
attention to the socio-economic profile of the neighborhood.
It is a matter of socio-economic classification which results in a spatial
segregation. As a result, housing can represent wealth, culture, religion,
environmental quality, etc., depending on the current value system of a given
society and, as such, it is closely related to concrete historical conditions—i.e., the
temporal dimension (Phe and Wakely, 2000:10).
22
2.1.6 Supply of Housing and Producer Rationality
Housing supply is the other side of the issue. Housing supply reflects a stable
character in the short-run since there is a fixed stock. Construction process takes a
considerable time, and it is not possible to produce housing easily. Therefore, in
the short-run, housing prices and rents are determined primarily by demand while
in the long run; housing prices are set by construction and land costs or
development costs (Mills and Hamilton , 1993:209,210).
Supply side is composed of various actors taking part in the development process.
Not only housebuilders but also capital market, construction activities, design
professionals, planning authorities and land-use regulations intervene in the
process (Table 2.1). But it is important to remind that, the stages and stakeholders
may differ from one country to another due to the administrative structure and the
constitutional requirements.
Table 2. 1: Stages and stakeholders in the housing development process
Stages Stakeholders
Land Search and Assembly Landowners Estate Agencies Financial Agencies Planning Agencies
Development Design and Planning Permission Architects Planning Agencies Planning Authorities Housing Production Architects Subcontractors Financial Agencies Public Agencies Marketing and Selling Estate Agencies Building Societies/Banks Advertising Agencies Consumers
Source: Short et al, 1986:39
23
The attractiveness of urban fringe from the suppliers’ side comes primarily from
the low land prices. It is a fact that when the price of a factor of production falls,
relatively more of it is used. As a result of purchasing lower prices for faraway
lands, producers are able to use more land and build larger housing units within
low density residential areas, in suburbs. Therefore, on the edge of the city,
single-family, detached homes may predominate, whereas close to the downtown
areas of large cities dwellings may be primarily in high-rise apartment buildings
(Muth, 1975:65).
2.1.6.1 Production Function of the Housebuilder
Profit maximization is the main consideration of housebuilders, and the only way
to maximize the profit is reducing unit production costs. Since capital (K) and
land (L) constitute the production function of housebuilding, the optimum
composition of these factors enables the producers to maximize their profit.
Capital covers infrastructure and superstructure expenses of the building and its
unit price can be assumed to be constant at every location in an urban area for a
homogeneous commodity. On the other hand, land rents differ according to
location; therefore in order to reduce the costs; it is a requisite to decide on the
land factor.
Production function of the producer reflects the amount of housing units that can
be built with a limited budget. It is clear that in the central places, where land
rents and prices are relatively higher, smaller amount of land (LA) would be used
by housebuilders. At the further distances from the CBD, land (LB) becomes
available in amount. Although the share of capital decreases from KA to KB, more
housing units can be built since the increase in the amount of land input increases
more than the decrease in capital input (KA/LA> KB/LB). With a given budget, the
house-builder is able to invest on more housing units in the outer parts of the city
owing to the decrease in land rents from the city center (Figure 2.10).
24
Figure2. 10: Housebuilders production function with respect to the quantities of capital and land
2.1.6.2 Factor Substitution in the City and Declining Residential Densities
with Increasing Distance from the CBD
When the heterogeneity of housing is considered, not only the price of land, but
also the number of stories and structural features of buildings should be taken into
account. At the center, supply of residential land becomes inelastic due to its
scarcity. The less land used per dwelling, though, the greater the expenditure on
structural features of dwellings (Muth, 1975:65). Thus, the further we move from
the CBD, the more elastic becomes the land supply.
Richardson explains the factor substitution and the rapid fall of non-land/land
input ratio with increasing distance in Figure 2.11. According to him, housing can
be produced at each distance from the CBD, but the product is very heterogeneous
(Richardson, 1978:274). Single-family detached houses take place of high-rise
apartments at the outer skirts, while the amount of land content increases in
housing production.
KB
C/PK
KA
Capital (K)
Budget lines
Production function isoquants (q of housing units)
EB
EA
C = PK.K + PL.L
LA C/PLA LB C/PLB Land (L)
25
Land
(N/L)1 > (N/L)2
Suburbs (N/L)2
Central city (N/L)1
Non-land inputs
P1/n
P2/n
Figure2. 11: Housebuilders’ factor substitution in the city with regard to land and non-land inputs
Source: Richardson, 1978:275
With the increasing distance from the CBD the price of land P2 would be lower,
and builders will substitute land for other inputs with lower non-land/land input
ratio (N/L)2. Therefore, capital can be transferred to other fields while structural
and environmental qualities are expected to be higher. Therefore, low-rise, low-
density developments that are economically unfeasible at the city center become
feasible at the outskirts, for the housebuilders.
The point worth noting is that densities decrease with increasing distance from the
center, because the density gradient is an outcome of different non-land/land
ratios around the city. In a monocentric city, density is expected to be
concentrated at the CBD which also creates the high value of land.
To sum up, housebuilders should consider the development density, in order to
maximize their profit. Greater densities give the opportunity of producing more
housing per unit of land. Therefore, especially in the central areas, where the land
rent is quite high, high-densities are preferred in order to economize on land;
however at the urban fringe densities decrease and it becomes possible to produce
low-rise houses.
26
2.1.6.3 Optimum Density Problem
Housebuilders’ interests and households’ preferences may not always coincide
with each other. Yet, an optimum development density should be determined
depending on housing price, land price and floor area ratio from suppliers’ side.
Developers tend to substitute land with capital when the land is more valuable.
Therefore, within the city densities are higher when compared to the outskirts,
because of the high land values at the centrally located neighborhoods. However,
increasing densities has some drawbacks since it reduces the value of a unit.
Greater density reduces the value and, hence, profit from each unit, but increases the number of units that can be placed on the land. The former reduces site profits while the latter increases it (Dipasquale and Wheaton, 1996:74).
As a result, developers should consider the optimum density to maximize their
profit while satisfying the households’ expectations. The model developed by
Dipasquale and Wheaton explains the relationship between the over-mentioned
variables and maximum profit that can be attained at a certain FAR value. In the
model, FAR is used as a measure of density.
P = α-βF
C = μ+πF
p = F(P-C)
where,
P : price of housing
α : collective value of all other locational and structural attributes
that can affect the price of a dwelling unit
β: marginal reduction in value with increasing density.
F : floor area ratio (FAR)
C : cost of construction
μ : basic cost of construction
π : incremental additional cost which increases linearly with
density increase
27
p : the residual value per square foot of land, attained from the
multiplication of FAR with the difference between price of housing
and construction cost (Dipasquale and Wheaton, 1996:74)
The residual profit is derived from the difference between price and construction
costs. Until point d, where price of housing is equal to construction cost, producer
enjoys different levels of profit. In fact, the maximum value for p*, the residual
profit, is attained at F* representing the optimum FAR value. (Figure 2.12)
Figure2. 12: Optimal FAR
Source: Dipasquale, Wheaton, 1996:75
C (construction cost)
P (housing price)
Assumed profit per sq. ft. of floor area P (price per sq ft Housing)
P*
α
μ
F* FAR (Floor area ratio)
d
d: P=C ; no profit which means no residual value to the land
F*
P (price per sq ft Land)
p*
FAR (Floor area ratio)
28
2.1.6.4 Housebuilders’ Considerations
It has been mentioned that housebuilders invest on land where they can acquire
maximum profit. It also means careful selection of sites, with considerations of
marketing, the chances of obtaining planning permission, the social context and
the availability of servicing all weighing heavily on housebuilders decisions
(Carmona et al., 2003:50). The table below demonstrates the whole considerations
of producers, in the phase of site selection:
Table 2. 2: Perceived Importance of site selection criteria by housebuilders
Source: Carmona et al, 2003:49 (cited in Pacione, 1989).
The ranking reveals housebuilders count on various criteria for housing
production as well as the locational attributes. It is very important whether the site
Criteria in site selection Ranking of importance
Market factors 1 Planning permission (availability or ease to get) 2 Basic services (existing and ease to supply) 3 Social class of neighborhood 4 Condition of subsoil 5 Access to schools 6 Site availability 7 Topographic conditions 8 The asking price of the land 9 Size of site 10 Access to city center 11 Proximity to local shops 12 Physical environmental quality 13 Access to employment 14 Availability of clearance grant 15 Existing ground cover 16
29
would be developed for residential, commercial, industrial or recreational uses. In
that sense, urban fringe is attractive from many points for the housebuilders to
produce housing units, with regard to the market factors, planning permission, site
availability, price of land, and size of the site. Moreover, developing a new site
would provide some opportunities in terms of social class of neighborhood,
topographic conditions and physical environmental quality. However, it has also
some drawbacks in terms of basic services (existing and ease of supply), access to
the city center, proximity to local shops and access to employment.
2.1.7 The Effects of Population Growth, Household Income and
Transportation on Housing
Until now, determinant characteristics of demand and supply factors on the spatial
arrangement of sectors, particularly of housing, were mentioned through the
monocentric urban model. Although the model has a static characteristic, it is
useful to explain spatial arrangement of different sectors, housing demand and
housing supply within the urban economic context.
Apart from this, certain socio-economic, demographic and technological changes
are influential on spatial housing pattern. Geoffette-Nagot asserts that;
Analytical properties concerning residential location relate population dispersion to three main factors. First, provided that the income elasticity of demand for housing is higher than the income elasticity of the marginal commuting cost, than the distance from the center will increase with income level – a result that can be interpreted as a preference for ‘privacy’ as against ‘community’ (Papageorgiou, 1990, ch.9). Second, an increase in household size with a fixed number of working members will increase housing consumption and lead to residential locations farther away from the CBD (an increase in housing consumption due to specific preferences will have the same effect). Third, improvements in the means of transportation that reduce monetary costs or transport time will contribute to a flattening of land rents and population densities (Geoffette-Nagot, 2000:320).
30
2.1.7.1 The Effect of Population Growth on Urban Space
Population growth leads to an increase in demand of housing since more housing
units will be required for more people. But in the short run, it is difficult to
increase the quantity of housing easily. Therefore, when the rate of population
growth is relatively higher than the rate of improvement in housing technology,
prices of dwellings in current stock are expected to rise (Figure 2.13). In addition
to this, increasing population would increase urban densities, as well.
Figure2. 13: Increasing in the spatial pattern of urban housing prices with population growth.
Source: Muth, 1975:68
Unless something else occurs to cause consumption of housing per family to
change differently, population will increase most rapidly in the outer parts of the
city where the housing stock has increased most (Muth, 1975:72). Because the
increase in population would necessitate conversion of agricultural land to urban
land, development activities start at the fringe. Housing prices increase
significantly also at the outskirts in the short-run.
At the meantime, redevelopment activities take place in downtown aiming to
renew the existing obsolete dwellings. Therefore, in the long-run, there would be
a reduction in housing prices, as the excess demand is eliminated by rising supply
P1
P2
Distance (u)
Housing Prices (P)
31
by means of the new housing estates developed at the fringe and the redeveloped
parts at the city center.
2.1.7.2 Income Effect on Locational Choice of Housing
Income is an important factor affecting the locational choice of the households. In
the US, high income residents tend to locate in suburbs, whereas low income
groups occupy downtown. The reason is that the income elasticity of demand for
housing is greater than the income elasticity of commuting cost. In other words,
housing consumption is more responsive to the changes in income. In the simple
monocentric model, the expression for the slope of the housing-price function is
simplified by O’Sullivan as:
∆Ph/∆u = -th/H(u)
where
∆Ph : the change in price of housing;
H(u) : housing consumption;
∆u : the change in distance;
th : commuting cost (O’Sullivan, 2003:190).
The equation, indicates that both the opportunity of commuting, t, and housing
consumption, H, increases with a higher income. But for wealthy households
income elasticity of demand for housing is greater than income elasticity of
commuting cost and the increase in housing consumption exceeds the increase in
commuting cost. Consequently, high-income groups have a relatively flatter bid-
rent curve, which implies that they tend to live farther away from the city center;
while low-income households due to having a steeper bid-rent curve usually
occupy centrally located neighborhoods (Figure 2.14).
32
Apart from this, growth in average income leads to increased price per unit
housing and increased housing expenditures, since the households would tend to
consume more amounts of housing services.
Figure2. 14: Bid-rent function and income
Source: O’Sullivan, 2003:191
However, there are different tendencies among households living in different
countries. For instance Paris metropolitan area shows a contradiction to the over
mentioned assumptions and theoretical explanations. Indeed, Paris has unique
characteristics to invert the American case. Cultural amenities such as museums,
restaurants, parks, and thriving street life make the center more attractive than the
suburbs. Therefore, wealthy groups and elites prefer to live at the central places,
while suburbs are occupied generally by the modest socio-economic groups.
O’Sullivan states that:
If the demand for these cultural amenities increases rapidly with income, the forces pulling the rich toward the central city (access to jobs and cultural amenities) are more likely to dominate the forces pulling them toward the suburbs (lower prices of land and housing) (O’Sullivan, 2003:190).
Bid-rent function of the poor household
Bid-rent function of the wealthy household
Land
Distance from the city center
33
To sum up, demand for housing is greater than commuting considerations for high
income households in general. Therefore, it becomes affordable them to live
further from the city center. Nevertheless, the relationship between a households
income level and locational choice of the residences may show different
characteristics since wealthy groups may prefer to live in downtown due to the
social and cultural amenities like Paris example.
2.1.7.3 The Effects of Transportation Improvements on Urban Space
Improvement in transportation promotes urban decentralization and encourages
households to move further from the city center; because improved transportation
facilities make commuting easier, faster, and probably less expensive, thus the
marginal disutility of transportation decreases.
However, the type of improvement plays an important role to compare the relative
advantages. Alonso states that technical improvements in transportation may have
two effects: (1) they may make commuting easier, and (2) they may make it less
expensive (Alonso, 1964:111). For instance, providing a public transport facility
reduces the cost of traveling in terms of money and time. On the other hand,
commuting with automobile tends to be more comfortable and pleasant although
it is more expensive than public transportation.
Apart from this, it is essential to mention that improved transportation facilities
would make lands at distant sites more attractive, and result in increasing of the
land rents at the outskirts in the long run. Therefore, it can be argued that
transportation improvements contribute to urban sprawl. Over the time, as a result
of the lands becoming more valuable, new residential quarters flourish and the
densities tend to increase, as well.
34
2.2 A Critical Review of Housing and Land Rent Theories
Urban land rent theories provide an explanatory framework for the urbanization
process and urban development. Beginning from the Ricardian/von Thünnen
model, land rent models intended to explain the high land values at the city center,
as well as households’ and housebuilders’ economic rationality in spatial housing.
Alonso made a critical suggestion by explaining the decreasing land values from
the city center and the distribution of income among the optimum composition of
land costs, commuting costs and all other expenditures, on the basis of a
monocentric urban model. In the pursuit of Alonso, various explanations have
been made to reveal the issue.
First, it was deduced that the households are subject to a trade off between
housing and transportation costs, which directly relates to the distance from the
CBD. Commuting also affects their consumption pattern among housing, and all
other goods and services. Besides the locational features; environmental
characteristics of the site, structural attributes of the housing unit, socio-economic
status of the neighborhood and availability of the urban services are the other
considerations of households.
Second, it was concluded that land rent and the availability of site affects
housebuilders’ decisions since their main objective is profit maximization. With
regard to this urban fringe is attractive for developers since the land prices are
relatively low and land is relatively abundant. Here, it is important for them to
find the optimum allocation among capital and land, which yields the greatest
return. Moreover, densities and the floor area ratio (FAR) are the other
considerations which directly affect the level of profit.
In addition to these, some demographic and technological factors are influential
on spatial housing pattern. Population growth let the prices increase at the center
while encouraging decentralization and suburbanization. Urban areas experience a
35
spatial segregation with respect to households’ income. It has been stated that the
high-income households could afford transport costs and they are expected to be
willing to pay for better urban environment and structural quality. Thus, they tend
to move to the suburbs while leaving the declined central neighborhoods to the
low-income groups.
However, the relevancy of the model can be questionable since many of today’s
large cities are not monocentric. Also it should be kept in mind that the time
element is de-emphasized and historical background of the urban development has
been undervalued, as a result of the model’s ahistorical approach. Furthermore,
urban land rent theory has not been developed further considering the new urban
and regional developments. It lacks the factors apart from quantitative and
monetary ones, such as social aspects and investment flows. Jäger states that one
severe deficiency of land rent theory still is its restricted perspective on space and
he adds that it appears rather difficult to deal with urban space as something
which goes beyond interpreting space as distance (Jäger, 2003:237).
In order to clarify this uncertainty, O’Sullivan put the following reasons, which
explains the importance and prevalence of monocentric city:
First, the monocentric city was the dominant urban form until the early part of the twentieth century, so urban history is largely a history of the monocentric city. Second, many of today’s small and medium-size cities are still monocentric. Third, to understand the transition from the monocentric city to the modern city, one must understand the forces behind the development of the moncentric city in the first place. Fourth, many of the lessons from the monocentric model can be extended to the modern cities (O’Sullivan, 2003:167).
Today, land rent is highly affected from the neighboring land rents and global real
estate markets. Investment trends and the mobility introduced by the new system
are the other determinants of housing economics in marco-perspective. Figure
2.15 and Figure 2.16 illustrate the development of the views about the linkage
between housing and economy.
36
Figure2. 15: Key housing-economy links: old view
Source: Maclennan, 1997:26
AGGREGATE SUPPLY
AGGREGATE DEMAND
DEMOGRAPHY MACROECONOMY INFLATION INCOMES INTEREST RATES
HOUSING SUPPLY HOUSING DEMAND
LABOUR
MOBILITY HOUSE PRICES WEALTH INVESTMENT
SAVINGS WORK EFFORT
TURNOVER WITHDRAWAL NEW SUPPLY
EXTERNALITIES, HOMES-JOBS
METCH
Figure2. 16: Key housing-economy links: emerging view
Source: Maclennan, 1997:28
DEMOGRAPHY MACROECONOMY
AGGREGATE DEMAND
INFLATION INCOMES INTEREST
RATES
HOUSING SUPPLY HOUSING DEMAND HOUSE PRICES HOUSING INVESTMENT MULTIPLIER
37
Until the late 1980s, incomes, interest rates and inflation were influential on
housing demand. Housing demand was expected to increase with income growth
and decrease in interest rates, and in accordance with the rising housing demand,
housing investments were expected to increase, as well (Figure 2.15). However,
beginning from the 1990s, demand side expansion, and contraction, impacted not
only upon new housing investment but also had major effects on household
mobility (Maclennan, 1997:26).
In the emerging system, the relationship between the house prices and
households’ wealth as well as their consumption pattern has become more
complex. Moreover, the changes in house prices influence labor mobility which
would have direct effects on the overall economy (Figure 2.16). Therefore, the
system does not seem to depend on clear, simple linkages but more complicated
relations that are subject to internal forces as well as externalities.
In consequence, although a reformulation is needed to adapt the theoretical
formulations to the contemporary trends, urban economic approach with respect
to land rent theories provides an explanatory, overall basis for the spatial
organization of urban areas and the urban sprawl phenomenon.
38
CHAPTER 3
HISTORY OF LOW-RISE HOUSING IN DEVELOPED COUNTRIES
3.1 Historical Background and Transformations Affecting the (Sub)Urban
Form
Low-rise housing development is highly related to suburbanization; therefore it is
important to discuss development of suburbs on behalf of development of low-rise
housing areas. Suburbanization is generally perceived as a contemporary term
which became widespread after the Industrial Revolution. However it is an old
phenomenon having its roots in ancient times. Lewis Mumford asserts that the
suburb becomes visible almost as early as the city itself, and perhaps explains the
ability of ancient town to survive the insanitary conditions that prevailed within its
walls (Mumford, 1961:550-551). He gives the examples of the Egyptian and
Hellenic Cities where it is possible to observe the initial traces of suburbs.
In the Medieval times, there were huts, cottages and villas located at the outside of
city walls. While initial examples of outskirt settlements had primarily served as
summer residences or recreation; subsequent ones turned to be privileged upper
class estates providing healthy, quiet and pleasant environment.
Although historical evidences of the outskirt settlements can be presumed as the
antecedents of suburbs, contemporary suburbanization, which was initiated after
the Industrial Revolution, reflects distinctive characteristics. Actually, urban land
was re-arranged as a result of economic, social and technological transformations
that were experienced after the mass industrialization.
39
In that sense, (sub)urbanization will be discussed in four subsequent parts with
regard to the important transformations: Industrial Revolution, First World War
and Great Depression, Second World War, and Globalization, which have been
influential on socio-economic and spatial features of the cities.
3.1.1 The Effect of Industrial Revolution on Cities
The Industrial Revolution and the pursuing mass migration have altered the socio-
economic and spatial characteristics of cities. Pre-industrial city that Soja stated as
the center of coordination, control, and administration of territorial cultures and
modes of production based primarily in agriculture, mining, and other primary
sector activities, as well as the systems of trade and commerce built upon these
primary production complexes (Soja, 2000:77) changed significantly. Large-scale
industrial production created a new kind of socio-economic structure which
attracted millions of people from countryside to urban areas.
3.1.1.1 Mass Migration Challenging the Early Industrial City
New job opportunities provided by manufacturing created an urban pull and a
mass migration from rural to urban became evident in the late 19th century. In
Britain, for example, the population shifted from being more than 80 percent rural
in 1750 to being over 80 percent urban in 1900 (Soja, 2000:77). However, urban
areas were entirely unprepared for such a dramatic population increase. Living
quarters of new comers started to be placed next to the factories, located at the
central places and close to the main transportation connections such as railroads
and seaports.
However, residential quarters of the labors were lacking of fresh air, clean water
and sufficient light. People who were condemned to live in these crowded and
unhealthy neighborhoods began to suffer sanitary problems. Indeed, epidemics
were quite common those days, and the ones who could not afford to move out of
the labor quarters had little chance to survive. Mumford named the miserable
40
cities of the late 19th and the early 20th century cities as “coketowns”, which tend
to be dark and grey as a result of smoking chimneys twenty-four hours a day
(Mumford, 1961).
Due to the declining living conditions of downtown, wealthy settlers of the central
city began to move to the new residential areas at the urban fringe. However,
increasing health problems and pollution started to affect the wealthy segments of
the society, even the ones that had moved from declined urban core to outskirts.
Decreasing labor productivity began to bother the capitalists while inhuman living
conditions began to worry some elites and social reformers. It was the time to
search for a solution for the problems and for taking some measures.
The discourse on urban decline actually began in the latter decades of the nineteenth century when massive urban population growth combined with industrial capitalism to create widespreading urban slums, environmental degradation, municipal corruption, and moral dangers. Numerous urban ills characterized the industrial city, and reformers with the help of local governments attacked the city’s problems with the new tools of planning, public administration, and social science (Beauregard, 1993:57).
The steps that were taken against the threatening outcomes of industrialization not
only transformed the existing cities, but also pioneered the modern suburban
movement. Zoning was introduced as an innovative solution for the urban land-
use pattern which was widely used in the US and in the UK. The first zoning
ordinance in the United States was put into effect in New York City in 1916,
providing regulations for building size and use within given districts (Gillham,
2002:26). Allocation of urban land into pre-determined uses, such as industrial or
residential, was the fundamental aim. By implementing zoning decisions it was
expected that city dwellers would live far from the toxic factories, and sanitary
problems would come to an end.
In fact, regulations had their roots in the preceding urban models such as Ebenezer
Howard’s Garden City and the City Beautiful Movement. Howard suggested
combining the positive aspects of town and country with a strict zoning in his
41
book of Garden Cities of Tomorrow, 1902. His planning approach was put into
practice in many new developments such as Letchworth and Welwyn (UK), and
Maryland (US). Different from the Garden City, City Beautiful Movement
intended to improve the declining city center. The basic principles were bringing
light, air and green space to the city with the help of architecture and landscape
design while creating livable sites with low densities.
3.1.1.2 The Effects of Technological Improvements and the Emergence of
Electric Streetcar Suburbs (1880s - 1920s)
Pre-industrial cities had been basically pedestrian, generally having a radius no
more than 2-3 miles. These compact, walkable urban areas had a mixed-use
pattern, while transportation connections to the remote places were realized by the
railroad in general until the late 19th century.
The first important improvement in transportation was the introduction of electric
streetcars in the late 1880’s. By the help of this improvement, horse-drawn
streetcars were replaced by faster and cheaper brand new electric trolleys.
Meanwhile, construction sector experienced a technological improvement after
the introduction of light wood framing.
The electric transit lines created a vast, new territory of urbanization, tripling the size of many older, ‘walking’ cities. Electrified transit combined with light wood-frame construction meant that the suburbs were no longer just for the rich (Gillham, 2002:28).
It can be argued that improvements in transportation and construction facilities
enabled more families to move to the outskirts. However suburbs were still
dependent on the city center, in terms of working, retail and entertainment
activities. Although increasing urban land succession created the first clear
division between city and suburbs in social and spatial terms, suburban movement
of the early 20th century remained quite naïve when compared to the postwar
suburban expansion.
42
3.1.2 The Repercussions of the First World War (1920s - 1940s) on Urban
Areas: Postwar Suburban Boom
The first remarkable suburban boom was experienced in the 1920s, after the First
World War, which was an important milestone for urban decentralization.
Improvements in manufacturing, particularly in automotive sector, enabled more
families to own a car. Increasing private car ownership contributed to the
residential mobility and supported the urban expansion. Soja defines the
characteristics of the postwar boom years, emerging between 1920 and 1940 as;
Fordist and Keynesian, metonyms for a different mode of capitalist development built on mass production, mass consumption, mass suburbanization, and widely established “social contract” drawing together big capital (symbolized by the automobile industry), large national labor unions, and big government intervention in the economy to stimulate growth and provide for expanded social welfare (hence the Keynesian label) (Soja, 2000:111).
3.1.2.1 Motor Age Suburbs
Automobile enabled a horizontal development which tended to be different from
the linear development of the former track system. However, apart from being
faster and more comfortable than the streetcar, automobile provided the freedom
of choice of location since everywhere turned to be accessible provided that a
highway was built.
However building new motorways was not the only solution for the transportation
problems, since the new suburban developments were lacking public transport. In
fact, such a dispersed pattern could only be realized by flexible accessibility of the
automobiles while any form of mass transit would make no sense. Therefore,
suburbs continued to be automobile dependent.
Radburn in Fairlawn, New Jersey can be given as a typical example of the early
motor age suburbs. Urban design principles such as separate pathways for
43
pedestrians and cars, cul-de-sacs serving to the clusters and parking lots, were
imitated by the other suburban developments that built after Radburn.
Nevertheless, these suburbs were exclusively residential and still dependent on the
city center.
3.1.2.2 Decentralization of Commerce, Industry and Business
No sooner had housing moved to suburbs than the commercial activities and
workplaces followed the spread-out. Initially, small scale retailing, generally on
local level, became available in suburbs. Then larger stores started to locate
outside of the city that Gillham asserts that the first real regional shopping centers
were built in the 1920s and 1930s (Gillham, 2002:38).
Meanwhile, space-demanding industries based on assembly line system, began to
agglomerate in ex-urban areas with the help of improving transportation
technologies. Indeed the trend had already started after the Industrial Revolution,
after the 1870s, but had not become widespread until the 20s. Decentralization of
industry gained an important speed with the help of increasing transportation
opportunities and developing technologies, like the use of electricity instead of
steam power.
As a result, urban fringe started to take a new shape by comprehensive
restructuring activities due to the urban decentralization. Suburbs began to loose
their bedroom characteristic since shopping centers and workplaces started to
relocate in suburban areas. On the other hand, city center started to loose its
attractiveness and the deserted areas of downtown occupied by the mixed-uses
such as housing and small work places.
3.1.3 Restructuring of Cities after the Second World War (1950s - 1980s)
Economies of the developed countries experienced a regression due to the great
depression of the 1930s and the subsequent World War. In addition to this, urban
44
population which had declined significantly during the war years started to
increase because of the returning veterans and new marriages. It was necessary to
execute some urban restructuring measures and fiscal programs in order to revive
the system and provide housing for the increasing population.
During the Great Depression and the Second World War, a second round of crisis-generated urban restructuring reshaped cityspace again. For the most tendencies that were evident in the last three decades of the nineteenth century, but the cumulative effect would produce some significant changes in the specific geography of the industrial capitalist city. Backed by the powerful alliance of big government, capital, and labor, the growth of mass production and its space-consuming assembly lines, along with the even more space-demanding rise of the once highly centralized location of factories and blue-collar workers in and around the downtown area of the central city (Soja, 2000:115).
Housing shortage was an important problem of the post-war years because
construction industry was not able to respond the emerging need. Indeed, it was
not possible to build new housing units fast enough for the veterans and
expanding families (due to the baby boom of the post-war years) with the
conventional building techniques and inadequate amount of construction
materials.
The improvement in mass housing production was introduced as a kind of
remedy. Plywood, drywall, prefabricated building elements, and the use of mass
production techniques all combined to accelerate the way houses were built
(Gillham, 2002:38) and the fastest suburban growth started in the 1950s. The rate
of suburban growth exceeded that of urban. In the US, for instance, particularly
‘white’ families, having a private car became the distinctive features of post-war
suburban movement.
Apart from residential developments, suburbanization of retailing, industry and
offices gained a significant speed at the outskirts in the restructuring years. In fact,
population increase, newly built highways that improved the connection between
central city and suburbs, expanding market size and the amount of workforce
45
within the suburbs attracted the investments which resulted in an economic
development at the urban fringe. Great cities of the US were the typical reflections
of the emerging dispersed pattern.
By the late 1950s, full-fledged regional shopping centers began to pop up all over the nation in response to the flood of new suburban housing. Soon, all of the shopping and entertainment opportunities once available only downtown became available in the suburbs and by the 1980s, nearly two-thirds of all retail trade in the nation took place in large shopping centers outside the center city (Gillham, 2002:39).
The main stimulus of the industrial re-location was nearly the same as the
residential and commercial development: cheaper and more available land.
Relatively high-rise industrial buildings congested in small plots of downtown
started to relocate at the periphery. Vast lands enabled to build industrial
complexes with huge parking lots, which had been impossible within the city
center.
The growth of suburbs created new outlying markets that justify the birth of new
firms while reducing the suburbs’ reliance upon the city’s firms and institutions as
suppliers of goods and services, and broaden the locational options for firms
(Stanback, 1991:2). Table 3.1 demonstrates that the rate of change in employment
and population in USA cities and suburbs in the restructuring period, which
reveals a greater employment and population increase in suburbs than in central
cities in three successive decades.
46
Table 3. 1: Average Annual Growth Rates of Central City and Suburb Population and of Manufacturing and Retailing Employment between 1940-1970 in USA.
1940-1950 1950-1960 1960-1970
City Suburbs City Suburbs City Suburbs
Population 0.80 4.19 -0.21 6.78 -0.54 3.35
Employment Manufacturing 10.39 12.16 -1.13 5.02 -0.04 4.21 Retailing 4.74 8.40 -0.52 7.69 -1.33 7.48
Source: Stanback, 1991:9 (cited in Stanback and Knight, 1976) On the other hand, urban decentralization and the further expansion of suburbs
accelerated the decline of downtown. Furthermore, due to the flight of population,
commerce and production, economy of the city center confronted with a recession.
It is important to mention that the term “decline” refers to various concepts such as
decrease in population, deterioration of buildings, decrease in investments or
increase in crime rates. Beauregard argues that a declining city is one that has
become less desirable as a place of residence and less attractive as a location for
capital investment in commercial and industrial activities (Beauregard, 1993:36).
In order to cope with physical decline and revive the economic activities, urban
redevelopment and renewal activities were initiated. Between 1950 and 1970,
transformation activities resulted in a recovery in physical pattern and fiscal
capacity of the cities to some extend. Since the suburbs continued to expand and
attract the capital, it was not possible to eliminate the entire financial difficulties,
declining spatial and social quality as well as declining services at the city center.
47
3.1.4 The Effect of Globalization: from Metropolitan Urbanism to Post-
Metropolitan Urbanism
After the 1980s, changing economic and political structure started to affect the
spatial organization and socio-economic pattern of urban areas. Downtown was
restructured by regeneration and revitalization projects while suburbs were
urbanized in a significant way. In fact, the clear distinction between city and
suburbs became blurred, metropolitan areas emerged and regional urbanism came
into prominence.
3.1.4.1 Urban Restructuring during the 1980s and Metropolitanization
Throughout the 1980s, urban areas experienced an important transformation by
means of the rediscovery of the city and urban revival activities. Urban
gentrification started to be appreciated by some elites and professionals. They
initiated the trend of ‘returning to the city’. In addition to this, economic
considerations contributed to this movement since fuel prices increased and
commuting turned to be quite expensive due to the oil crisis of the 1970s. In the
mid-1980s, young couples and singles were expected to live in ‘revitalized’ inner-
city neighborhoods, and financial firms to construct and occupy office buildings in
the downtowns (Beauregard, 1993:307).
However, it is a misconception to claim that suburbanization came to an end. On
the contrary, urban sprawl continued without a cessation since the ‘returning to the
city’ movement remained restricted to particular groups such as single
professionals, young couples and elites. Soja states that the 1990 US census
revealed that with few exceptions, the most rapidly growing areas were in
suburban rings surrounding the defining central city or cities (Soja, 2000:237). The
reason of such an intensive suburbanization can be explained with the Carmona’s
illustration of urban push and suburban pull factors in the new speculative housing
system (Table 3.2):
48
Table 3. 2: New Speculative housing – push and pull factors
Source: Carmona, 2003:52.
In fact, suburbs grew significantly in both economic and spatial terms that it can
be named as the urbanization of suburbs. Improving telecommunication,
transportation, and housing technologies together with the developing finance
opportunities and political interdependence assisted the process while city and
suburb constituted a metropolitan system together. Stanback explains this complex
symbiotic relationship as;
The central city heavily draws upon the suburbs for its work force yet sends a substantial number of its resident workers daily to jobs outside its boundaries, and suburbs depend heavily upon the streams of income provided by the wages and salaries of commuters (Stanback, 1991:1).
The study of Moudon and Hess constitutes a relevant example revealing the
transformation of suburbs. The researchers questioned the level of urbanization of
suburbs and the future of outer city developments. They examined the
development pattern of Puget Sound urbanized region in Washington State (USA),
including four counties since mid-90s. Research area covered 85 suburban clusters
(having an average of 3200 people per cluster) most of which have mixed-use
Urban Push Factors % Suburban Pull Factors %
Traffic Problems/lack of safety 39 Attractiveness of development 57 Busy crowded nature of context 23 Quiet secluded area 46 Levels of crime 20 Good environment for children 30
Poor environment for children 17 Safety from traffic 29 Lack of adequate gardens 17 Good local schools 26 Poor parking facilities 15 Green open environment 21 Lack of privacy 13 Proximity to other families 20
Noisy troublesome neighbors 12 Clean unpolluted environment 19 High levels of pollution 12 Good views of countryside 15 Street disturbances 12 Good privacy 15 Poor standard of schools 8 Secure environment from crime 10
49
pattern including predominantly residential and then retail uses while some of
them comprising open space, office, institutional and industrial uses.
In the study, population, housing stock, land use, urban services, transportation
and infrastructure pattern and demographic composition of the households were
analyzed. Afterwards, they concluded that the suburban quarters in the research
area were both densifying and nucleating, often in conjunction with commercial
functions (Moudon and Hess, 2000:260). The outcomes also asserted that
suburban development appears to be evolving in much the same way as urban
areas have in the past, different from the traditional perception of suburbs having a
decentralized, low-density form and single family houses. Moreover, the
researchers claimed that such a densified and nucleated suburban pattern was not
unique to Puget Sound, indeed the phenomenon existed in other metropolitan
regions as well (Moudon and Hess, 2000:262).
In consequence, it can be argued that suburbs are quite different from the previous
counterparts in the emerging system because the new order reflects a
metropolitanized pattern rather than a composition of several urbanized areas.
Therefore suburbs, particularly those that have already been urbanized, are likely
to encounter prospective urban decline problems and possibly Carmona’s over-
mentioned illustration of urban push and suburban pull factors may need to be re-
illustrated somehow in the following decades.
3.1.4.2 Beyond Metropolitanization
The discussions concerning urbanization have gone far beyond metropolitan
urbanization, by the 21st century. Until the past decade, there has been a vsible
spatial and socio-economic decomposition of urban pattern: the city and the
suburban developments. However, globalization have changed the overall system
while removing the borders of classical nation-states virtually and creating a
volatile, flexible world in both economic and social and even in spatial terms.
50
…The first involves the breakdown or deconstruction of the longstanding conceptual division between city and region, and its reconstitution as a new combinatorial form, some variant on city-region, urban-region, or more broadly regional urbanism…These city-regions are a “fundamental unit of social life”, comparable to the market, the state and the family. They are also “fundamental motor process in social life” as a consequential and filled with casual power as a technology, social stratification, and rational economic behavior (Soja, 2000:179).
In the emerging system, the concepts of urban area, suburb and rural have altered
since many of suburban developments exceeded central city in economic and in
spatial terms. Mono-centric urban development has been replaced by the poly-
centric one and it turned to be difficult to limit the urban frontier. Instead,
urbanized regions are started to be defined as a network of cities, suburbs, towns
and villages.
3.2 Concluding Remarks
Up to the present, urbanization and suburban development have been influenced
from the political and socio-economical transformations as well as the
technological improvements. At the initial phases, suburbs were mainly residential
quarters which tended to be totally dependent to the city, and those living at the
outskirts were high-income groups who could afford to live far from the city.
Then, with the help of technological developments, it turned to be affordable for
the middle income groups to live far from the city.
Moreover isolated and central city dependent characteristics of suburban
developments have changed by decentralization of retailing, industry and business.
Suburbs became urbanized nodes, of which community has been socially and
economically self-sufficient. In the past few years, diversified economic activities,
increased networking and enhanced spatial reduced the clear distinction between
city and suburbs, while regional urbanism gained importance.
51
CHAPTER 4
LOW-RISE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IN TURKEY WITH RESPECT
TO URBANIZATION AND URBAN DECENTRALIZATION
4.1 Urbanization and Urban Decentralization in Turkey
In this chapter, the history of urbanization in Turkey will be explained in five
major stages beginning from the 19th century to the current era: the Ottoman
Period, the early-Republican Era, Post-War Years, the Liberal Period and the Era
of Globalization. In that sense, the effects of socio-economic structure and
governmental regulations on planning practice will be discussed with respect to
urban transformation, decentralization, suburbanization, and housing issues.
Urban development shows different characteristics in Turkey when compared to
developed countries. To begin with, Turkey experienced the whole transformation
process within a relatively short period of time. Second, while urban planning
emerged as a reaction to the negative outcomes of industrialization in developed
countries, in the late 19th century; it was developed as an aspiration to the modern
world in Turkey, and it is important to mention that Turkey’s industrialization
process began in the 1950s. Third, urban fringe was initially occupied by the low-
income migrants in Turkey; rather than the high and middle income groups of
suburban settlers of developed countries.
4.1.1 19th Century Urban Form during the Ottoman Empire
Although industrialization initiated in the late 19th century and spread first through
Europe than North America, its impacts reached Turkey nearly fifty years later.
Tekeli states that since the Ottoman Empire had not been industrialized, urban
52
planning did not emerge as a reaction to the Industrial City (Tekeli, 2001:19) but
urban areas were indirectly affected from the outcomes of the transformations
which had been experienced in industrialized countries.
Different from the Industrial City, of which spatial arrangement based on social
class segregation, Ottoman City was formed according to cultural and religious
variations of the residents such as Muslim and Greek districts. Planning actions
were quite restricted in Ottoman cities, and instead of comprehensive planning
decisions, partial developments were common in practice.
İstanbul, the capital, was the prominent city and the highest portion of urban
population used to live in there. The city was reflecting a compact form of which
core was the Historical Peninsula, yet the initial traces of urban decentralization
were apparent along the Bosporus, as well. Actually the residential development
along the sea shore was reflecting a dispersed pattern and serving primarily as the
summer houses of high status bureaucrats.
4.1.2 Urbanization after the Proclamation of the Turkish Republic (1923 –
1950s)
After the proclamation of the Turkish Republic in 1923, a new era was
commenced. It was the prior objective of the state to create a modern nation. In
order to accomplish this aim, comprehensive regulations were set forth in various
fields, one of which was on urbanization. Indeed, urban planning was perceived as
a crucial tool to achieve a comprehensive socio-economic and spatial
transformation and create a modern society.
The most significant change experienced in urban sphere was the declaration of
Ankara as the capital. In fact, Ankara is an example of re-constitution of a capital
city3(Tekeli, 2000:317). Great attention was paid to the restructuring of the city
3 As Tekeli stated that, in the 20th century, re-location of capital city was used as a political tool in many countries, such as Canberra (Australia), Brazil (Brasilia), İslamabad (Pakistan) and Ankara (Turkey).
53
while emphasizing the revolutionary and modern ideals of the new regime, such
as strengthening of the nation-state and creating modern citizens. It can be
asserted that Turkish urbanization starts with Ankara (Tankut, 2000:301).
In addition to the planning practices in Ankara, intense urban transformation
activities were initiated in İstanbul and in other big cities, as well. Urban
population began to rise gradually due to the increasing birth rates and migration
to the cities. However, in the early days of the Republic, population growth rate
remained at moderate levels, yet it was noticeable to see the first indications of
prospective problems.
During the former years of the Republic, urban sprawl was not realized in
prudence and planned manner considering different components of urban
development such as housing, transportation, environment and infrastructure. The
only attempt was making the urban planning, which was experienced previously
in Ankara, an obligation for all cities with the execution of Municipal, Public
Sanitation and Building and Roads Law (Belediye, Umumi Hıfzısıhha ve Yapı ve
Yollar Kanunu) in 1930 (Tekeli, 2001:25).
In spite of the planning attempts, former examples of unauthorized housing began
to flourish those days. However government perceived the early unauthorized
developments as negligible, and no measures were taken at the former stages, the
number of these unauthorized units increased dramatically. Soon after, squatter
settlements invaded urban periphery which resulted in legal, spatial, sanitary and
social problems.
4.1.3 Urbanization Following the Post-War Years (1950s - 1980s)
Until the Second World War years, urbanization remained relatively naïve in
Turkey. The Second World War was a breaking point for the urbanization story of
the country. Although not taking part in the war, Turkey was affected from its
outcomes significantly. During the post-war years, economic and political
54
transformations overturned the whole system which had considerable
repercussions on urban sphere.
4.1.3.1 Industrialization by the 1950s and the Mass Migration from Rural to
Urban
Beginning from the early 1950s, urbanization gained an important speed which
led to mass migration movements from rural to urban areas. Figure 4.1
demonstrates that until the 1950s, the rate of urban population increased slightly,
but afterwards, it increased dramatically and the trend continued in an ascending
way permanently (Figure 4.1).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1927
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
2000
Years
Rat
io o
f Urb
an P
opul
atio
n
Figure 4. 1: Ratio of urban population between 1927 and 1980 in Turkey
Source: Tekeli and Güvenç, 1986:16 and SIS, http://www.die.gov.tr/nufus_sayimi
/2000Nufus_Kesin.htm, last accessed: March, 2006
In fact, the process started with an important transformation which affected the
agriculture sector. A rapid mechanization was realized in agriculture by means of
foreign grants and loans, such as Marshall Aid. However, mechanization
55
disrupted the composition of factors of production and the need for labor power
decreased, which resulted in an increasing unemployment in agricultural sector in
rural areas.
Technological improvements influenced not only rural but also urban areas.
Industrialization was initiated by the State through the implementation of fiscal
programs supporting industrial investments in terms of grants and loans. Indeed,
government aimed to strengthen industrial production, because it was considered
as a growth engine as a result of having higher returns when compared to any
other sector.
Consequently, diminishing job opportunities due to the substitution of capital for
labor in agricultural sector and the new employment opportunities introduced by
the thriving industry in cities resulted in the first great migration in the 1950s.
Accordingly urban population increased in a significant way within a few years
time, which gave the first indications of urban problems.
4.1.3.2 Urban Expansion by the 1950s and the Rising Problem: Squatter
Housing (Gecekondu)
As mentioned before, Turkish cities followed a different urbanization and urban
sprawl pattern when compared to the industrialized countries. For instance, in
developed countries the first settlers moving to the urban fringe were the high
income and middle income groups while leaving the downtown to the lower
income groups. In Turkey, on the other hand, urban periphery was initially
occupied by lower income groups who migrated from rural areas to cities. The
new comers started to occupy unauthorized housing areas which were totally
conflicting the planned suburban developments of the advanced countries.
The reason for such an illegal development can be addressed to the unprecedented
population increase due to the rural to urban migration. The first problem was the
sheltering of new comers since cities were totally unprepared for such a rapid
56
population increase. The number of housing could not be increased as rapidly as
the population while the existing stock turned to be inadequate and expensive for
meeting the requirements of them. Soon, Turkish cities were encircled by squatter
settlements – named as ‘gecekondu’ –.
Government under pressure from ever increasing population failed to provide serviced land for low income groups. There just did not exist sufficient funds for this aim. The credit funds were channeled into productive sectors and whatever was allocated for housing was used by middle income groups. Government also failed to take the necessary measures to encourage private sector to share the problem. The private sector was functioning in a narrow area in the housing market producing luxurious housing for the upper income groups. The failure to provide cheap and developed land, the failure to prevent land speculation and soaring of land prices led the way to another unauthorized development on land beside the gecekondus, namely to hisseli tapu (shared deed) (Şenyapılı, 1996:52).
No sooner did the squatter housing areas invade the periphery than the urban
problems emerged related to poor structural attributes as well as inadequate
infrastructure and urban services. In order to overcome these troubles and
discourage unauthorized housing, government put Amnesty Laws into practice in
the 1960s and 1980s. Although the attempts aimed to upgrade the existing stock
and prevent new gecekondu areas, they ended up with condoned unauthorized
housing units, increased land invasion and unsolved urban problems.
Apart from illegal developments, it is important to mention that there were
planned housing developments at the outskirts, as well. The authorized housing
attempts can be named as the suburban developments, to some extent. However,
they have some peculiar characteristics which can be mentioned as follows:
1. Cooperatives were the major housebuilders pioneering the suburban
movement of middle income groups, particularly civil servants who want
to live further from the declined city center but could not afford to build or
purchase housing.
57
2. High-rise blocks were preferred as well as low-rise housing units by the
housebuilders.
3. Urban sprawl was realized as an oil-spot form. Settlements were joined to
each other disregarding the voids and green areas which tend to be quite
important in providing air circulation and recreational facilities.
4.1.3.3 Government Interventions in terms of Laws and Financial
Regulations
Government introduced a set of laws in order to meet the needs of developing
cities as well as to control the uneven development on urban space. One of the
most effective one was the Condominium Law (Kat Mülkiyeti Kanunu, Law No:
634) which was enacted in 1965. Due to the effects of the Law, number of stories
of buildings in urban areas increased evidently and low-rise housing stock has
been replaced by high-rise apartments within a few years time. This
transformation has been realized mainly by small scale housebuilders named as
‘yapsatçı’, in Turkey.
The financial source of the housing acquisition was individual equity in general.
Apart from some finance providing institutions such as Emlakbank, SSK, Bağ-
Kur and Oyak, it is hard to claim that there was a developed and functioning
housing finance system in Turkey. Between 1963 and 1981, the share of all
housing credit institutions remained 8%-17% in total private housing investment
in all cities (Türel, 1986:56). Eventually after the crisis in the housing sector
which was experienced in the early 80s, former state owned funding systems were
abolished gradually and the Mass Housing Fund, which replaced the former
funds, was introduced in 1984.
The other transformative intervention affecting the land use pattern and urban
densities was the execution of the Gecekondu Law (Law No: 775) in 1966. The
aims were upgrading the existing unauthorized housing areas or clearing them
when upgrading is not possible and preventing the prospective squatter
58
developments by creating Gecekondu Prevention Areas. It was for the first time
that gecekondu was recognized as a potential. Different from the latter Amnesty
Laws, Gecekondu Law did not turn squatter housing into a speculative venture.
4.1.3.4 Concluding Remarks on Urban Development in Turkey in the 1950 –
1980 period and a Comparison of Turkey with the Industrialized Countries
The whole transformation activity and socio-economic changes have had a great
impact on urban pattern, particularly on urban densities. In addition to the
population increase, building densities and number of stories increased due to the
superseding of low-rise housing units by the apartments. Table 4.1 shows the
gradual increase of the share of apartments in total number of authorized housing
during 1970-1980 period.
Table 4. 1: The change in the number of authorized housing units from 1970 to 1980.
Source: Tekeli, 1982:95 On the other hand, centrally located neighborhoods were transformed mainly by
the small scale house builders, namely yapsatçı, since the large scale housing
Years Low-rise Housing Apartment Total
Change in Housing
Prod. (%)
Share of Low-rise
Hous. (%)
Share of Apartment
(%)
1970 51731 103984 155715 - 33,22 66,78 1971 55974 94383 150357 -3,44 37,23 62,77 1972 56054 105889 161943 7,71 34,61 65,39 1973 59597 135354 194951 20,38 30,57 69,43 1974 51142 109905 161047 -17,39 31,76 68,24 1975 55454 126231 181685 12,81 30,52 69,48 1976 57175 167405 224580 23,61 25,46 74,54 1977 52863 163265 216128 -3,76 24,46 75,54 1978 66640 170457 237097 9,7 28,11 71,89 1979 70275 181571 251846 6,22 27,9 72,1 1980 56435 147554 203989 -19,01 27,67 72,33
59
projects were still accepted as inefficient and unaffordable because of the low
capacity of construction market. Tekeli states that between 1975 and 1980,
yapsatçı house builders produced 47.000 units among the 80.000 authorized
housing, while housing cooperatives supplied 11.200 units and mass housing
firms-cooperative associations built only 1.000 units (Tekeli, 1982:89).
Apart from these, in terms of urban planning practices, legitimacy, house builders
and the socio-economic composition of the occupants, Turkey was unable to catch
up with the ongoing trends in the western world. Between the 1950s and the
1970s, industrialized countries were experiencing a comprehensive
suburbanization and decentralization of retailing and industry. It was mainly a
welfare period since the outer city was witnessing a development while downtown
was re-explored and revived by restructuring activities.
On the other hand Turkey, as a newly industrializing country, just started to
confront with the problematic outcomes of the industrialization and the
subsequent mass migration, within the same period. Authorities failed to foresee
different aspects of prospective problems and they intervene in the process only
by putting some laws into effect. Indeed, due to the lack of monitoring systems,
these laws could not be implemented in a regular way and remained inefficient to
respond to the needs of urban areas. Moreover, Türel asserts that government was
ineffective in establishing a sustainable and well functioning housing finance
system which led to three important consequences in housing provision:
First, for most moderate-to-middle income people home ownership could only be achieved through non-profit forms of provision. Second, speculative housebuilders have developed peculiar ways of producing and marketing housing in order to meet their own operating capital requirements and to bring convenient conditions of payment to house-buyers. Third, low income people do not have much chances of being home owners in an authorized housing stock. Since social rental housing does not exist as an alternative tenure, unauthorized housebuilding continues alongside authorized provision of housing (Türel, 1982:2).
60
As a result, in spite of some regulatory attempts, rapid industrialization, mass
migration and financial constraints resulted in a dualistic urban form in Turkish
cities after the 1950s: a declining urban core and a predominantly illegally
occupied periphery. Urban sprawl as an oil-spot form, expansion of gecekondu
areas, and new high-rise developments doubled urban problems since existing
urban services, infrastructure and transportation facilities turned to be inadequate
to meet the requirements of residential areas.
4.1.4 Housing Policies Affecting the Urban Fringe after the 1980s
After the mid-70s, world experienced a severe economic crisis due to the sharp
increase in oil prices. The repercussions of the worldwide crisis affected Turkey
soon, and economy went into stagnation. Housing was one of those industries
being hit by the crisis in a devastating way. Both demand and supply sides badly
affected from the economic situation while housing starts fell sharply in the 1980-
81 period, following a peak in 1979 (Türel,1994:203).
4.1.4.1 Housing Sector Crisis in the early 1980s
The increase in oil prices created a chain effect and inflation rates increased
extremely. Housing sector went into crisis because of the rising inflation rates, but
despite the immoderate increase in inflation, bank interest rates remained almost
the same (Figure 4.2). As a result, the institutions that were providing housing
finance at fixed rates started to make severe losses.
61
Average mortgage interest rate and annual inflation rate in the 1970-1992 period
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1970 1975 1980 1985 1991
Average mortgage interest rate Annual inflation rate
Figure 4. 2: Average mortgage interest rate and annual inflation rate between 1970-1992
Source: Türel, 1994:202
The stabilization program, which was introduced on 24 January 1980, worsened
the situation since the decrease in real wages brought forth a decline in housing
demand. Thus, housing starts ceased at the beginning of the 80s and many
housebuilders, particularly the small capital ones, went into bankruptcy.
It was unavoidable for the state to intervene in the process in order to overcome
the crisis and revive the housing sector. Türel asserts that the intervention was in
the form of creating a new finance system under the direct control of the
government (Türel, 1994:205). Two major mass housing acts were introduced
subsequently while the funds of former state-owned institutions were transferred
to the newly introduced mass housing fund.
62
4.1.4.2 Execution of the Mass Housing Acts and the Boom of Housing
Cooperatives after mid-80s
The first attempt was enactment of the 1st Mass Housing Law (Law No: 2487) by
the Military Government in 1981. According to the law, Ministry of
Reconstruction and Resettlement was employed with developing publicly owned
land and providing credit to housebuilders and purchasers. The act necessitated a
minimum of 200 housing units for planned areas and a minimum of 15 hectares
and 750-1000 housing units for unplanned areas to be determined as a mass
housing area (Altaban, 1996:33,34). Cooperatives obtained finance with regard to
this law, but unfortunately the system did not work properly because of regional
funds not being transferred to the national budget.
As a result, a subsequent law, namely the 2nd Mass Housing Law (Law No: 2985)
was enacted in 1984, after the election of the new liberal government. A ‘Mass
Housing Fund’ was created as the main financial source and supplementary taxes
were introduced as supplementary financial sources for housing credits.
According to this law, the minimum area should be one housing block within the
planned boundaries and should cover a minimum of population requiring an
elementary school beyond the planned area. Different from the first one, second
act enabled credits not only for cooperatives but also for individuals and
producers of construction materials. Furthermore, unlike the previous law, there
was no ceiling limit for the floor area of the dwelling for credit eligibility.
Therefore, thousands of individuals and cooperatives applied on the mass housing
fund and the number of new housing starts boosted, in a short period of time.
It can be named as the boom period of housing cooperatives (Table 4.2) since the
number of cooperatives founded per year increased from 140 to 2787 after 1984.
Indeed, the housing cooperatives pioneered the suburbanization by implementing
mass housing projects at the urban fringe. According to the study4 of Berkman
4 Berkman and Osmay’s study was based on a survey comprising 434 housing cooperatives in 58 cities, and it was conducted in 1992 with the support of Housing Development Administration of Turkey (Toplu Konut İdaresi)
63
and Osmay half of their locational choice for housing estate construction was in
developing urban areas (Table 4.3) while nearly twenty percent of them were
located beyond the municipal boundaries (Table 4.4).
Table 4. 2: Distribution of Housing Cooperatives According to Years
Source: Berkman and Osmay, 1996:4 (Ministry of Industry and Commerce, State
Institute of Statistics)
Table 4. 3: Location of the Cooperative Plot
Location Number of Cooperatives % 1. Close to the City Center 102 24,1 2. In Developed Housing Areas 74 17,5 3. In Newly Developing Areas 212 50,0 4. Other 15 3,5 5. 1+2 11 2,6 6. 1+3 10 2,4
Total 424 100,0 Source: Berkman and Osmay, 1996:49
Years
Number of Housing Coop.
Founded
Number of Housing Coop. that get Construction
Permit
Number of Housing Coop. that get
Occupation Permit Before 1984 6010 (21%) 6328 (32%) 3724 (46%) 1984-1989 17475 (62%) 12042 (61%) 3727 (46%) 1990-1991 4822 (17%) 1474 (7%) 709 (9%)
Total* 28307 (100%) 19844 8160
* Since the foundation years of 24.3% of cooperatives are not known, these are not represented in both before 1984 period and the grand total
64
Table 4. 4: Location of the Cooperative Plot with regard to Administrative Boundaries
Location with regard to the adm. boundaries Number of Cooperatives % 1. Within the Municipal Boundaries 306 82.9 2. Within the Adjacent Area to Munic. Bound. 43 11,7 3. Beyond the Contigous Boundaries 13 3,5 4. Within the Village Boundaries 7 1,9
Total 369 100,0
Source: Berkman and Osmay, 1996:49 Although the housing cooperatives played important roles in the process, the
transition in the form of mass housing developments was realized by the
participation of various stake holders that Özüekren and Yirmibeşoğlu defined as
cooperatives, Housing Development Administration, local governments with the
assistance of Housing Development Administration, private developers and the
housebuilding firm of Emlak Bank (Özüekren and Yirmibeşoğlu, 2002:97). It was
an important step to take city boundaries further since the sites for the new
residential developments were chosen among the areas from further locations
which tend to serve suitable and cheap land for the producers.
Nevertheless, unstable character of Turkish economy prevented the system to be
sustainable. Mass Housing Fund was abolished because it became impossible to
compensate the credits with fixed rates in the volatile economy with high inflation
rates. Moreover, the number of accepted credit applications was more than the
capacity of the system.
As a result, some house builders went into bankruptcy while many others were not
able to finish the projects which they had already started. Although some
measures were taken on the basis of constraining the criteria of eligibility for the
credit, system could not recover itself as 30 to 50 per cent of its income was
transferred to the National Budget between 1989-1991 (Türel, 1989:153).
65
4.1.4.3 Introduction of the Amnesty Law and Its repercussions on Urban
Land
The other important government intervention affecting the urban form and
housing development during the same period was the Building Amnesty Law5
(Law No: 2981), which was enacted in 1984. Different from the previous amnesty
acts which had aimed to legalize the existing gecekondu buildings and prevent the
new ones, 2981 aimed restructuring through urban redevelopment projects. It was
purposed to create larger plots by conjoining the small parcels and building
apartments on these plots in place of the gecekondu units.
However, such a transformation resulted in greater problems. Low-rise gecekondu
areas were replaced by apartments and residential densities increased.
Accordingly, urban services and infrastructure that had already been inadequate,
could not respond to the needs of redeveloped areas. Moreover, populist policies
increased land speculation, and provided unearned rent for gecekondu owners that
were able to have more than one dwelling in newly built apartments instead of
their shanties.
4.1.4.4 Review of Urbanization throughout the 1980s
Consequently, 80s was a transformation period in housing development with
regard to the means of provision, house builder and household characteristics.
Interventionist attempts of the Liberal Government, socio-economic restructuring,
internal and external dynamics had considerable repercussions on urban space.
First, from the regulatory point of view, Mass Housing Law and Building
Amnesty Law had crucial impacts on urban areas since the former was effectual in
the legal housing development while the latter was influential in unauthorized
housing development. Indeed, Mass Housing Law enabled large scale housing
5 Although the full name of the Law is “İmar ve Gecekondu Mevzuatına Aykırı Yapılara Uygulanacak Bazı İşlemler ve 6785 Sayılı İmar Kanunun Bir Maddesinin Değiştirilmesi Hakkında Kanun”, it is abbreviated as the “Building Amnesty Law”.
66
projects at the outskirts while the Building Amnesty Law gave way to the
transformation of squatter housing into apartments. However, new developments
were not planned in a reasonable way generally, that many quarters were lacking
urban services and suffering from inadequate infrastructure facilities. Moreover,
these settlements were using the existing resources and opportunities which
created a heavy burden on the existing system.
Second, when compared to the suburban areas of developed countries, urban
fringe developed in a different way in Turkey since it covered both high-rise
apartments and low-rise houses together. In fact, at the end of the 80s, cities were
reflecting a densely packed pattern with a central city that was surrounded by
high-rise blocks and the further expansion of unauthorized housing areas.
Third, housebuilder and household groups changed in the 80s in a considerable
way. Although small capital speculative housebuilders had constituted the
dominant group in the pre-80s, the share of cooperatives in housing provision
increased significantly after the mid-80s, which were quite active at the urban
fringe. In the meantime, outskirts experienced a transformation in terms of the
major household type, since high-income and middle-income households started
to move to the new housing estates at the outskirts. Urban periphery was not
under the domination of squatter settlements and low-income groups anymore.
4.1.5 The Effect of Liberal Policies and the Former Transition Period on
Urban Sphere after the 1990s
After the 1990s, globalization, started to be influential on urban space. With the
new era, regulatory and interventionist roles of the State weakened, particularly in
the economic arena. Being affected from the transformation, Turkish economy
gained a neo-liberal, foreign oriented character and privatization came into
prominance.
67
4.1.5.1 The Rise of the Private Sector
The new system encouraged private sector to participate in every kind of
investments, including housing. Indeed, throughout the 1990s, housing production
(both houses and apartments) was dominated by the private sector. Building
construction statistics demonstrates that the number of newly built apartments was
more than the number of houses (Figure 4.3) and apartments were quite favorable
for private house builders as well as for individuals and enterprises (Figure 4.4).
On the other hand, construction cooperatives tended to supply two times more
new low-rise housing units than apartments from 1993 to 2000 (Figure 4.5).
Although public sector contribution to housing sector has never achieved a
sufficient level, its share remained close to 0% in recent years. The significant
dominance of private sector can be explained by both the fiscal and political
deficiencies of the state as well as the effects of globalization.
Total Number of Newly Built Buildings
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Years
Num
ber
of B
uild
ings
HousesApartments
Figure 4. 3: Total number of completed or partially completed new buildings and extensions
Source: SIS, http://www.die.gov.tr/IstTablolar/17in226t.xls, last accessed: March,
2006
68
Number of Newly Built Apartments by Sector
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Years
Num
ber
of B
uild
ings
(Apa
rtm
ents
)Public Sector
Private Sector
Individuals andEnterprisesConstruction Cooperatives
Figure 4. 4: Total number of completed or partially completed new apartments by sector
Source: SIS, http://www.die.gov.tr/IstTablolar/17in224t.xls, last accessed: March,
2006
Number of Newly Built Houses by Sector
05000
100001500020000250003000035000400004500050000
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Years
Num
ber
of b
uild
ings
(hou
ses)
Public Sector
Private Sector
Individuals andEnterprisesConstruction Cooperatives
Figure 4. 5: Completed or partially completed new houses by sector
Source: SIS, http://www.die.gov.tr/IstTablolar/17in224t.xls, last accessed: March,
2006
69
Apart from the housing, comprehensive transformations were experienced in other
sectors. For instance, transformation in socio-economic and cultural spheres in
addition to increasing telecommunication opportunities, improving information
technologies and the shift from industrial production to service sector, led to a
global restructuring on urban space while functional and social fragmentation has
sharpened in urban areas.
4.1.5.2 The Rise of Gated Communities
After the 1990s, spatial segregation increased. In residential areas, the concept of
‘site’6 has pioneered this segregation. Sites have been quite common in new
development areas at the outskirts, and some of them were built within the city.
These residential areas covered either low-rise housing units or apartments or both
of them. The ones covering only the low-rise housing units were organized like
the post war suburban settlements of North American cities and generally
occupied by the high income and the middle income groups.
‘Gated communities’, the isolated luxurious residential areas of the wealthiest
groups, have been the ultimate form of site concept. In Ankara there are many
examples such as Çamlık Sitesi, Beysukent and Angora Evleri. According to
Baycan Levent and Gülümser, due to the lack of available land size, price and
construction permit, these developments emerged in suburbs or around
metropolitan boundaries of İstanbul (Baycan Levent and Gülümser, 2004:11) such
as Kemer Country and Alkent 2000; while some of them were located in the
prestigious districts of the city, in smaller plots such as Polat Tower Residence
and Akmerkez Residence.
The social and spatial polarization that is transforming contemporary İstanbul is a familiar story with familiar physical images. The urban elites who are benefiting from the project of global modernization are responding to the rising levels of chaos and disorder (represented by
6 “Site” is a Turkish word, implying the cluster of housing units and/or apartments while some of them includes shopping centers, recreational and sports complexes but primarily serving as residential.
70
squatter settlements) by moving out of the city to the luxury housing projects that are being developed on its edges…In the new peripheral estates, the idea of public space is being abandoned. There is nothing of the creative disorder (Sennet 1970) of urban life –no street culture, no complexity, no strange, chance encounters – just an exclusive and excluding order for those who want to escape the real city (Sandercock, 1998:177).
Therefore, gated communities have not only created a spatial segregation but also
an isolation of high-income groups and the re-establishment of public space and
private space paradox.
4.1.5.3 Current Problems Confronting the Urban Areas
After the 1990s problems related to inadequacy of affordable housing, prevalence
of unauthorized housing, low quality of urban environment and traffic congestion
came into prominence. The mismatch of ‘need’ and ‘housing type’ became
evident while housebuilders have not considered low income groups usually.
Although there have been many alternatives in luxurious housing stock, the
options for affordable housing remained quite limited. Today, in many cities such
as İstanbul, Konya, Trabzon, and Adana there is an important amount of
unauthorized housing and these cities suffer from the lack of authorized housing
supply (Çanga, 2002:53).
Nowadays, there is a comprehensive ongoing construction activity throughout the
big cities of Turkey and individuals are encouraged to use long term housing
credits with low interest rates in order to own a dwelling. The process contributes
to the further expansion of urban areas. However, it is questionable that the
system would be a remedy to the over-mentioned problems and provide adequate
and qualified housing for different groups since prices and rents are increasing
gradually and the ones who are likely to be negatively affected from this trend
seems to be the low income groups.
71
4.1.6 The Composition of Housing Supply in Turkey by the end of the 1990s
with regard to Building Attributes, Occupancy and House Builder
Characteristics
In order to figure out the current situation of housing supply in Turkey, it is
important to present some facts about the existing stock. The recent Building
Census, 2000 of the State Institute of Statistics (SIS) provides a useful data for
these analyses. The census covers the boundaries of 3212 municipalities and the
adjacent area to the municipal boundaries, and includes data such as the use of
buildings, owner of buildings, stories of buildings, etc.
4.1.6.1 Housing Production in the last Decade
To begin with, the number of urban population increased more in urban areas than
the total population increase in 1990-2000 period. Today, nearly 65% of
population live in urban areas in Turkey (Table 4.5). Meanwhile, total number of
residential and mostly residential buildings as well as the number of dwellings
increased in a significant way in 1984-2000 period (Table 4.6).
Table 4. 5: Population change in Turkey in the 1990-2000 period
Population in
1990 Population in
2000
% of Population Increase in 1990-2000
period (per year) Turkey 56473035 67803927 20% Turkey-Urban 33656275 44006274 30%
% of Urban Population 59% 65%
Source: SIS, http://www.die.gov.tr/nufus_sayimi/2000Nufus_Kesin1.htm, last
accessed: April, 2006.
72
Table 4. 6: The increase in the number of residential and mostly residential buildings, and the dwelling units in Turkey
Years The number of
resident. and mostly residential buildings
% Change
The number of dwelling units within the
municipality boundaries
% Change
1984 3.841.609 7.096.277
2000 6.735.813 75%
16.235.830 77%
Source: SIS, 2001: 7,8
However, it is important to mention that construction sector was affected from the
crises which hit the overall economy in 1994 and in 2001. In those years, GDP
growth fell sharply (Figure 4.6 and Figure 4.7). The impacts of these crises on
housing sector can be observed in the fluctuations in housing production (Figure
4.8). Gradual decline in residential housing production which started in 1994
reached at the bottom level in 2002. Then, as a result of government interventions
the housing production started to increase and a recovery period commenced.
Average Interest Rates and Inflation Rates in the 1993-2004 Period
020406080
100120140160180200
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Interest Rates Inflation Rates
Figure 4. 6: Average interest rates, CPI (%) and inflation rates (%) in the 1993-2004 period
Source: Türkiye’de Dünya Bankası, 2005:2
73
GDP Growth (%)
-10-8-6-4-202468
10
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Figure 4. 7: GDP growth (%)
Source: Türkiye’de Dünya Bankası, 1993-2004, 2005:2
Production of Residential Housing
0100.000200.000300.000400.000500.000600.000700.000
1955
-59
1960
-64
1995
-69
1970
1980
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Years
Num
ber
of D
wel
lings
Construction Permits Occupancy Permits
Figure 4. 8: Production of residential housing according to the construction and occupancy permits
Source: DPT, http://ekutup.dpt.gov.tr/ekonomi/gosterge/tr/1950-04/esg.htm, last
accessed: May, 2006
74
4.1.6.2 Household Attributes
Building census, 2000 reveals that today nearly half of the urban population lives
in apartments, built as a single block (Figure 4.9), and the number of households
living in apartments are more than those living in single houses. However, it is a
misconception to claim that there are more apartments than single houses by
considering the number of households, since a single apartment includes more
than one dwelling and the number of households increases with the number of
dwellings as well.
% of Households According to the Type of Building
Apartment House (not located in a
hous. estate)50%
Detached House
(located in a hous. estate)
1%
Detached House (not located in a
hous. estate)40%
Apartment House
(located in a hous. estate)
9%
Figure 4. 9: Number of households by type of the building including the dwelling unit (Turkey-Urban)
Source: SIS, 2004:71
Housing survey also reveals that ownership is more prevalent than tenancy in
Turkey (Figure 4.10). When the method of construction is examined, it is seen
that approximately one third of the stock was built by the owner of the plot by
75
himself7 or by hiring construction workers. Hiring a contractor in return to a flat
and hiring a subcontractor are also favorable in house building while the share of
public sector remains quite low (Figure 4.11)
Households by Ownership Status of the Dwelling
Owner60%
Lodgement1%
Tenant31%
Not owner but no rent is
paid8%
Figure 4. 10: % of Households by ownership status of dwelling (Turkey- Urban)
Source: SIS, 2004:118
% of Method of Construction of the building including the dwelling unit
Other18%
Unknown1%
Built by a building
cooperative10%
Built by the owner of the plot by hiring subcontractor
12%
Built by a contractor in return to flat
15%
Built by a contractor on his own plot
5%
Built by a public
organization as dwelling for its
employees2%
Built by a public
organization as a housing
estate 1%
Built by the owner of the
plot by himself or by hiring construct. workers
36%
Figure 4. 11: Method of construction of the building (Turkey-Urban)
Source: SIS, 2004:95
7 This ratio covers households in authorized stock as well as gecekondu owners.
76
Another significant outcome is that nearly 70% of the households living in urban
areas are not satisfied with their dwelling units (Figure 4.12) and most of them
would prefer to live in a detached house8 (Figure 4.13). Such a preference can be
a clue for prospective urban development pattern and it is expected that if people
have possibility and financial opportunity to change their residence, they would
likely to move to a single house since they perceive low-rise houses more livable
than apartments.
Percentage of Households by Satisfaction with the Dwelling Unit
Households who are
satisfied with their dwelling
units 30%
Households who are not
satisfied with their dwelling
units70%
Figure 4. 12: Percentage of households by satisfaction with their dwelling unit (Turkey-Urban).
Source: SIS, 2004:151
8 Here, detached house refers to low-rise housing unit owned/rented by a single household.
77
Percentage of Preferred Type of Building for Living
Apartment located in a
housing estate6%
Apartment not located in a
housing estate13%
Detached house in a
housing estate 12%
Detached house not
located in a housing estate
69%
Figure 4. 13: Percentage of preferred type of building for living for those who are not satisfied with their dwelling units (Turkey-Urban).
Source: SIS, 2004:151
Finally, car ownership increased particularly during the 1990s. Statistics reveal
that the number of motor vehicles increased in the last decade, since the total
number of motor vehicles reached to 10.733.073 in 2005 with a 135% increase in
1992-2005 period. The increase in the number of automobiles has been more
significant which was counted as 5.624.046 in 2005 with a 158% increase in the
same period (Figure 4.14).
78
The number of motor vehicles in 1992-2005
2 000 000
4 000 000
6 000 000
8 000 000
10 000 000
12 000 000
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Years
Num
ber o
f veh
icle
s
Motor Vehicles (total) Automobiles
Figure 4. 14: The number of motor vehicles and automobiles in Turkey between 1992-2005.
Source: SIS, http://www.die.gov.tr/TURKISH/SONIST/TASIT/t3_191005.xls, last accessed: April, 2006 4.2 Concluding Remarks
To sum up, urbanization is highly connected with the political interventions and
the economic conjuncture in Turkey. Due to the urban pull and rural push factors,
as well as industrialization, population increased in cities greatly beginning from
the 1950s. Such an unprecedented population movement from rural to urban areas
created various problems, such as unauthorized housing, inefficient urban
services, congestion and increasing urban densities. Housing finance has always
been a problem since a well functioning system could not be established over
time, which drove low-income groups to occupy the illegally developed stock.
Government put some laws into effect, in order to control the ad-hoc
developments and to overcome unauthorized housing problem. However, these
79
attempts have not been resolute and consistent; indeed many of them served the
populist policies. Urban densities increased gradually in urban areas while
squatter housing developments occupied the urban fringe. Landowners and
gecekondu owners made considerable profits out of the process (that can be
explained by unearned rent); since the landowners benefited from increasing land
rents while gecekondu owners benefited from the Amnesty Laws which turned
their illegally developed housing units into legal status.
The problem of inadequate housing supply for the low income and the middle
income groups intended to be solved by the enactment of Mass Housing Laws.
With regard to these laws, housing cooperatives and some big firms initiated large
scale projects at the outskirts where the land rents are lower and more available
when compared to the urban core. However, it is important to mention that small
scale house builders, namely yapsatçı, who work in relatively smaller plots within
the city that were acquired from the landowners in return to flat, have dominated
the house building industry at all time. The share of housing cooperatives and
large firms increased particularly after the 1980s to some extend, but never
exceeded that of small scale house builders.
The trend of low-rise suburban developments with spacious gardens is a new
concept for Turkey. In recent years, some private firms and housing cooperatives
initiated housing projects covering luxurious houses addressing especially to the
high income groups. However, these residences tend to be unaffordable for the
majority.
To sum up, housebuilders have preferred to produce not only low-rise houses but
also high-rise blocks at the outskirts, for years. But the urban densities in such
areas tend to be relatively lower, and the urban services and environmental
qualities are relatively higher than the centrally located neighborhoods. Due to
such advantages, many households moved to urban periphery especially in the last
decade.
80
CHAPTER 5
LOW-RISE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IN ANKARA
5.1 Urban Development in Ankara
Ankara followed more or less the same path with Turkey’s urbanization story
since the development of the city was affected from political and socio-
economical transformations over time. In the following part, urban planning
experiences in Ankara will be explained in five major subsequent phases: The
Early Republican Period, the Period of Jansen Plan, the Period of Yücel-Uybadin
Plan, the Period of Ankara Metropolitan Plan Bureau and the Period of the
Greater Ankara Municipality.
5.1.1 The Early Republican Period (1923-1932)
After the proclamation of the Turkish Republic in 1923, Ankara was declared as
the capital. This was a major watershed for the future of the city in many terms
since Ankara was conceived not only as an official capital but also as the
reflection of the desired modern community. New capital provided new job
opportunities especially in public sector due to the foundation of governmental
institutions, such as the ministries, and eventually such a transformation resulted
in the first migration movements from rural areas and other cities to Ankara.
Until the 1930s, city was planned partially. In order to eliminate the housing
shortage and provide a new image for the city, a development plan was submitted
for Sıhhiye district in 1925. However, such a small scale pace was not effectual
enough to meet the needs of new comers and to create a modern capital for the
new Republic.
81
Thus, the idea of preparing a comprehensive plan started to be favored. For that
reason, a restricted planning competition was arranged in 1927 and among the
participants – Jausseley, Brix and Jansen – the plan of Herman Jansen (a German
planner) was selected as the plan of Ankara, in 1928. The plan was approved in
1932, after making some modifications on the original one.
5.1.2 The Period of Jansen Plan (1932-1957)
Jansen Plan was compatible with the desire of the young republic to create a
modern city and a modern urban lifestyle. German planner proposed an
ecological, low-density Master Plan considering 300.000 inhabitants for the
projected 50 years (Figure 5.1).
Figure 5. 1 : Jansen Plan
Source: Günay, 2005:73
82
Jansen Plan was reflecting a conservationist approach respecting the original
peculiarities of the historical pattern and emphasizing landscape features. But
unfortunately, the plan failed to respond to the unexpected growth of the city; and
revisions were made in the following years, inevitably. Indeed, urban population
exceeded what had been projected for the fifty years in just twenty years time,
while the unexpected growth resulted in land speculation. In addition to this,
unauthorized housing flourished, particularly in the northern part of Ulus (the
historical center of the city).
The cause of population increase was the mass rural to urban migration movement of the 40s. Nevertheless, there was neither organized industry agglomeration nor widespread small scale production to employ the settlers while the only place to employ this unskilled-inexperienced labor power was the city center. Therefore the new comers were shoved to the nearest places to city center that were not allowed settling because of having a slope over 25%, being a flood basin or prone to the land slide. (Şenyapılı, 1996:2)
In order to meet the housing need of increasing population, some attempts were
made in the authorized housing supply, as well. The concept of housing
cooperatives was introduced and the first example, Bahçelievler Housing
Cooperative, was founded in 1935. Low-rise, low-density residential
development suggested a prototype of highly qualified urban environment for a
defined number of inhabitants (Figure 5.2). However, unanticipated population
increase put a significant stress on urban land and it turned to be unfavorable to
duplicate the Bahçelievler example in different parts of the city. Indeed,
Bahçelievler itself could not withstand the increasing rent pressure. Housing
cooperatives which acquired land around Bahçelievler carried out partial
implementation plans which led to increase in the residential densities (Tekeli and
İlkin, 1984:109) and the low-density, low-rise layout could not be sustained.
83
Figure 5. 2: Ankara Bahçelievler Housing Cooperative by Herman Jansen, 1936
Source: Cengizkan, 2001:260
Consequently, individual house building and housing cooperatives failed to
respond to the need, and gecekondu areas became widespread which were
occupied by the households who could not afford the existing stock. Housing
shortage in authorized supply and unimpeded unauthorized housing prompted the
government to take some measures. In that sense, the laws coded 52189 and
9 Law No. 5218: The Law about Giving Ankara Municipality the Authorization of Conveyancing and Allocation of Certain Parts of Its Land and Parcel to the House Builders with Determined
84
522810, were put into effect in 1948. Parcel allocation with respect to the 5228
that was practiced first in Yenimahalle, then in Etlik. However these
implementations just legalized the existing unauthorized stock, and triggered the
eventual urban problems.
5.1.3 The Period of Yücel-Uybadin Plan (1957-1969)
Predictions of Jansen had already been digressed by the 1940s and it turned to be
inefficient to execute the plan decisions any longer. Therefore, another planning
competition was organized in 1955 and the plan of Nihat Yücel and Raşit
Uybadin was awarded with the first prize (Figure 5.3). The plan was defined
within the municipal boundaries considering a single city center and 750 thousand
inhabitants living within the boundaries.
Bademli states that “the plan had born dead, in a sense” (Bademli, 1986:107)
because projected population for the year 2000 exceeded the limit of 750 thousand
soon before 1965 and the presumption of development within the boundaries
triggered increasing densities and accordingly land values.
The plan had initially suggested a low-density, balanced urban development especially in the northern part of the city, (100 inhabitants/ha for Keçiören, 250 inhabitants/ha for Etlik, 160 inhabitants/ha for Aydınlıkevler) and relatively higher densities in southern part of the city (300-450 inhabitants/ha for Esat, Çankaya, Ayrancı, Cebeci, etc.) (Cengizkan, 2001:238).
In fact, pre-determined densities were exceeded in a few years time due to the
population increase as a result of rural to urban migration. The city was
surrendered to the ad-hoc, speculative developments and expanded gecekondu
areas (Figure 5.4).
Conditions not Depending on The Law No. 2490 (Ankara Belediyesine Arsa ve Arazisinden Belli Bir Kısmını Mesken Yapacaklara 2490 Sayılı Kanun Hükümlerine Bağlı Olmaksızın ve Muayyen Şartlarla Tahsis ve Temlik Yetkisi Verilmesi Hakkında Kanun) 10 Law No. 5228: Encouragement of Building Costruction Law (Bina Yapımını Teşvik Kanunu)
85
Figure 5. 3: Uybadin-Yücel Plan, 1957 (urban development before and after 1950)
Source: Cengizkan, 2001:255
Figure 5. 4: Uybadin-Yücel Planı and gecekondu areas
Source: Günay, 2005:89
86
Particularly after the Second World War, in the period of economic stagnation,
building a low-rise housing on a single parcel became unaffordable because of the
increasing land values. The Municipality aimed to compensate rising land values
with increasing densities. It is important to mention that the enactment of
Condominium Act (Law No. 634) in 1965 assisted the process which led to the
increase in number of stories through the ‘demolition-reconstruction’ process.
Supplier composition shifted from individual housebuilding to small capital
housebuilders who are called as ‘yap-satçı’. The brand new housebuilder type
pioneered the process by demolishing the single, low-rise houses and building
apartments instead of them. As a result of increasing densities and land values
both speculative small capital housebuilders, namely ‘yap-satçı’, and the
landowners made ultimate profits during those years.
Drawbacks of the Yücel-Uybadin Plan were recognized soon after, since the city
was subject to increasing urban problems like inefficient urban services, air
pollution and unauthorized housing. Moreover, the city experienced a significant
land speculation within the boundaries of planned areas as a result of demolition-
reconstruction process and an uncontrolled urban expansion beyond the
boundaries as a result of the ‘Partial Urban Physical Development Plans’ (Mevzi
İmar Planı). According to the statistics, the total urban area which had been 1.500
ha in 1924, increased to 16.000ha in 1938 and 31.000ha in 1970 (Şenyapılı,
1996:2) which means that urban area expanded nearly 20 times in a 46 years time.
A Low-rise Housing Practice: Kavacık Subayevleri
There were some appreciable housing attempts in the 1950s. ‘Kavacık
Subayevleri Kooperatifi’ (1950) is an important example reflecting the livable and
affordable housing approach of the period. It was a low-density residential area
comprising 1 or 2 storied houses with quite spacious front and back yards (Figure
5.5) which were addressing to the families with moderate income levels
(particularly the civil servants).
87
Figure 5. 5: The pattern of ‘Kavacık Subayevleri District’ in 1/5000 Plan which was prepared with regard to the aerial photographs of 1970.
Source: Cengizkan, 2001:254
However, transformations on urban space, increasing population and land rent
pressure soon affected the residential district and eventually the area was defeated
by the land speculation in the following decades. Cengizkan remarks that
dissolution of the pattern had started with the foundation of the district. As early
as 1957, single storey houses asked for the permission of construction of another
storey to the Municipality (Cengizkan, 2001:245). Demolition and reconstruction
process accelerated after the 1980s, and today the residential composition of
88
Kavacık Subayevleri is quite different than that of the early days, both in physical
qualities and socio-economic profile of the residents.
5.1.3.1 The Consequences of Yücel-Uybadin Plan
Urban densities increased both at the city center and at the urban fringe. While the
low-rise housing stock was swept away within the city, some parts of the fringe
were substantially occupied by squatter housing. In order to control the uneven
development – particularly outer city developments –, it was essential to make a
new plan. Ankara Metropolitan Plan Bureau, which was founded in 1969, under
the Ministry of Public Works and Settlement, committed with the duty and
proposed a master plan considering physical development pattern as well as social
and economic aspects for the projected twenty years, after comprehensive
analyses.
5.1.4 The Period of Ankara Metropolitan Plan Bureau (1969-1984)
‘Ankara Metropolitan Plan Bureau (AMPB)’11 introduced a Master Plan that was
prepared as a structure plan at 1/50.000 scale (Figure 5.6) following a five-year
long analyses, and the plan was approved in 1982. Bureau proposed a framework
with a new approach considering the participation of different actors such as the
local government, governmental institutions and universities.
The plan, named as ‘Ankara 1990 Metropolitan Plan’, was emphasizing
development along the western axis in order to relieve the high-density
development within the boundaries of Yücel-Uybadin Plan. New policies paved
the way of urban decentralization and enabled the city to expand beyond the
traditional topographic thresholds. Developments along western axis were
realized with regard to the plan and new neighborhoods were suggested such as
Sincan, Fatih, Batıkent, Eryaman around the İstanbul Highway on the north-
western part; and Çayyolu, Koru Sitesi, Konutkent along the Eskişehir Highway. 11 Ankara Metropolitan Plan Bureau (AMPB): Ankara Metropoliten Alan Nazım İmar Plan Bürosu (AMANPB)
89
Figure 5. 6: Ankara Nazım Plan 1990
Source: Bademli, 1986:111
5.1.4.1 Mass Housing Developments during the 1970s
Mass housing developments came into prominence after the 1970s which enabled
the city to expand in a planned way with the implementation of large-scale
projects, considering open spaces and green areas. Urban decentralization gained
a new momentum by mass housing projects while new developments located 10-
15 km away from the urban core. It was an alternative development undertaken by
90
non-profit housing cooperatives or private corporations operating at the urban
fringe in general to the speculative small-scale house-building operating at the
centrally located neighborhoods. Batıkent, Eryaman and Or-An are the well
known examples of mass housing developments, which were initiated in the
1970s, the former two by non-profit housing cooperatives, while the latter by a
private corporation.
Batıkent Project
The most significant mass housing development of that period was Batıkent
project. The initial aim of the project was to provide low-cost housing in a well
planned and controlled way. Preparations started in the first half of the 70s and
expropriation of the area was completed in 1978 (Birgül and Şahin 1984:83).
‘Kent-Koop’12 undertook the project management together with the participation
of the Municipality of Ankara, and Batıkent Coordination Office was established
in that sense between these bodies.
Project area was located at 13 km away from the city, covering 1035 hectares for
an anticipated 250.000 inhabitants (Figure 5.7). Both low-rise houses and high-
rise apartments were considered within the project with different density levels.
For instance, densities were determined as 120-150 inhabitants/ha for 1 or 2
storey housing districts, while densities were as high as 530 inhabitants/ha and
695 inhabitants/ha in other parts (Birgül and Şahin 1984:93,94).
After the expropriations some corrections were made on cadastral maps and the
Urban Physical Development Plans at 1/5000 scales were revised by the
Municipality Planning Unit, during 1979. Afterwards, Urban Physical
Development Plans at a scale of 1/1000 were approved and infrastructure projects
were prepared. Finally, land was allocated to the cooperative unions. The first
land allocation was made on 07.06.1981 (Aras, 1996:120).
12 Kent-Koop is the first Housing Cooperative Association of Turkey, which was founded in 1979.
91
Although the project emerged in mid-70s, total implementation period continued
approximately eighteen years because of the conflicts among the project
management authorities, judicial issues and some technical problems such as
invalid and out of date cadastral maps. In spite of all inconveniencies, Batıkent
can be appreciated as a foresighted large scale project since it assisted the
decentralization of residential areas towards the north-western corridor in a
planned and controlled way, and the plan covered low-rise housing units as well
as high rise blocks.
Figure 5. 7: Batıkent Plan
Source: Birgül and Şahin, 1984:107
92
Figure 5. 8: Aerial view of Batıkent
Source: Türkkonut, 2005:17
It is important to mention the differences of Batıkent in terms of developer
characteristics, type of housing units and locational attributes from the suburban
developments of western countries: Batıkent developed as an initiative of a non-
profit housing cooperative, the project covers low-rise housing units and
apartments together and the area is located at a moderate distance from the city
center. In fact, due to the urban sprawl, the area has integrated with the city in
recent years. Therefore, today Batıkent is an inner city district rather than an outer
city suburban development.
Eryaman Project
Eryaman is another housing project which was located at the outskirts. The
project was initiated by the ‘Housing Development Administration’13 (HDA),
with regard to an Act introduced in 1979. Apart from the Treasure Lands,
spacious expropriations were realized by the ‘General Directorate of Land Office’
(Arsa Ofisi Genel Müdürlüğü) in 1979, in an area of approximately 1100 hectares,
13 Housing Development Administration-HDA (Toplu Konut İdaresi-TOKİ): HDA is a governmental institution which was founded in 1984 under the directorate of Prime Ministry. The aim of HDA is providing adequate shelter for all, in a livable environment.
93
nearly 22 km away from the city center which was tendered to 20 contractors in
1987 by HDA (Altaban, 1996:74).
Figure 5. 9: Plan of Eryaman Mass Housing Area
Source: Türkkonut 2005:32
Eryaman project has many similarities with Batıkent project. First, it was a
governmental initiative which was started in the late 1970s. Second, the project
area was located at the north-west of the city, and third, the area covered both
high-rise blocks (Figure 5.10) and low-rise housing units. Moreover, both of the
projects made a great contribution to the development of north-western corridor
while providing low-cost housing particularly to the middle income households by
means of Housing Cooperatives. Construction process continued during 80s and
90s, and some construction activities are still going on today in the 6th, 7th, 8th and
the 9th stages.
94
Figure 5. 10: Aerial view of Eryaman
Source: Türkkonut, http://www.turkkonut.com.tr/projeler.asp, last accessed:
January 2006
Or-An Project
Apart from the housing cooperatives, construction firms initiated mass housing
projects during the 70s. “Or-An” project is the most significant one, which was
carried out by Orta Anadolu İnşaat A.Ş. The incorporation was comprised of
engineers, architects and other professionals whose aim was to create a modern
district by using scientific knowledge and modern technology. Project (nearly 110
ha) was located beyond the planned area on the southern part of the city,
comprising about 7.000 housing units and 30.000 residents. Moreover, it was
intended to strengthen the southern axis (Figure 5.11) and accordingly emphasize
the southern districts in Çankaya.
95
Figure 5. 11: Location of Or-An within the city
Source: Koparal, 1984:50 cited in Or-An preliminary report, 1971:46
Construction permissions were acquired in 1969 and building activities continued
during 1970s. Housing units were designed with a minimum of 100 m2 floor area
in 4 and 8 storey blocks. Moreover, there was a 16 storey building at the center
having a symbolic meaning. The average density was 280 inhabitants/ha, and the
housing density was 70 housing unit/ha (Koparal, 1984:35).
96
Or-An project is important since it reflects the initial tendency of private sector to
invest high-rise development at the remote areas from the center. Indeed, the
project indicates that low-rise housing was not considered as profitable as the
high-rise blocks by the private developers those days. But it is important to
mention that urban densities remained lower when compared to the center in spite
of the 4 and 8 storied apartments. In fact, Or-An can not be considered as an
actual suburban development since the area was located 10 km away which
tended to be quite close to the center and today it is already integrated with the
urban core.
5.1.5 The Period of the Greater Ankara Municipality
After the election of the Liberal Government in 1984, new regulations were
introduced which directly affected the administrative sphere as well as the urban
development pattern. One of the most important laws introduced that time was
‘The Law coded 3030 on the Management of Metropolitan Municipalities’ and
the ‘Greater Ankara Municipality’ was established with regard to this law. The
other laws which gave a new direction to urbanization were the 2nd Mass Housing
Law (Law No: 2985) and Urban Physical Development Law (Law No: 3194).
Greater Ankara Municipality was equipped with a significant authority and
responsibility in planning in charge of the over-mentioned laws. It was determined
to direct housing development through two major paths: mass housing projects on
new development areas at the fringe and urban redevelopment projects on
declining residential areas at the urban center.
Western corridor along the Eskişehir Highway, particularly the south-western part
of the city was favored by the new housing investments, such as Çayyolu I,
Çayyolu II, Konutkent and Ümitköy which gave a great impetus to urban
expansion.
97
In fact, such a trend is an outcome of the historical process, in addition to the
locational attributes and geographical formation of the city. At the initial phases
of urban expansion, northern and north-eastern parts of the city experienced an
intensive invasion of unauthorized housing areas. These gecekondu areas besieged
particularly Mamak, Keçiören and the northern part of the historical city center,
Ulus. Illegal developments had an off-putting effect for those parts of the city, and
the new developments tended to be organized around western and southern parts.
Indeed, in the course of urban development, there has been an apparent socio-
economic segregation of inhabitants throughout the city. A hypothetical line can
be assumed passing through the railway and separating the city in two parts: the
northern part and the southern part. Northern and north-eastern parts are primarily
occupied by middle-income and low-income households, while southern and
south-western parts are mainly occupied by high-income and middle-income
groups. Thus, southern and southwestern parts turned to be more attractive for
new housing developments
In addition to the spatial distribution of socio-economic groups, geographical
attributes had an important effect on the development pattern of Ankara. The city
has been surrounded by mountains from northern (Etlik Hills, 1050m and
Karyağdı Mountains, 1200-1500m), eastern (Hüseyin Gazi Mountain, 1415m) and
southeastern (Elmadağ, 1862m) sides (Altaban, 1986:7). Therefore, the
topographical thresholds (Figure 5.12) prevented the city to expand through the
northern and eastern parts, as well.
98
Figure 5. 12: Topographical formation of Ankara
Source: Altaban, 1986:9
As a result, beginning from the 1980s, the city expanded through south-western
and southern corridors. Housing cooperatives were the main house builders, and
new residential areas were developed in forms of housing estates named as site.
No matter how far it was from the center, many apartment blocks were built in
addition to the low-rise houses. In the following part, mass housing projects that
were started in 80s on the southwestern axis and urban redevelopment projects
will be mentioned briefly.
5.1.5.1 Mass Housing Projects and the Development of the South-western
Corridor
The implementation of mass housing projects continued during the 1980s while
new projects were introduced at the western part of the city, particularly along the
Eskişehir Highway, such as Çayyolu, Mesa Koru Sitesi and Konutkent. These
projects resemble with the former outer city mass housing projects since they
99
covered both low-rise and high-rise units together. Moreover, these projects
assisted the south-western development axis (Figure 5.13).
21
34
1234
- BATIKENT- ERYAMAN- ÇAYYOLU- KORU SİTESİ
Figure 5. 13: Positioning of Batıkent (1), Eryaman (2), Çayyolu (3) and Koru Sitesi (4) within the Yenimahalle Municipality.
100
Çayyolu Project
Çayyolu is an important project which was initiated by the Greater Ankara
Municipality in 1985, in accordance with the Master Plan decisions. The project
was decided upon as an urban residential development corridor on the south-
western growth axis of the City of Ankara (Aras, 1996:127) and it was undertaken
by ‘Türk-Konut’, an organization having the cooperative central union status that
covers housing cooperatives and housing cooperative associations. In the project,
construction process was financed out of European Housing Fund credits.
The project was comprised of two stages: “Çayyolu I and Çayyolu II” (Figure
5.14). “Çayyolu I” was located about 17 km away from the city center covering
10.700 housing units on a 450 ha. area. Privately owned land was acquired by
compulsory land purchase according to the Expropriation Law coded 2942 (Aras,
1996:127) and the construction of 3500 low-rise housing units (duplex) and 7200
apartment dwellings started in 1989. Total completion of the project took nearly
nine years time.
Figure 5. 14: Implementation Plans of Çayyolu I and Çayyolu II.
Source: Türkkonut 2005:18,22.
Çayyolu I Çayyolu II
101
Different from the first stage, the Municipality did not partake within the process
of the second stage. Türk-konut developed the area for 4000 units by acquiring
lands directly from the landowners. Çayyolu II covers 1235 low-rise housing units
(dublex) and 1896 apartment dwellings. The construction activity is continuing
while the proportion of construction completion was reported as 86.43 % by
December 1st, 2005 (Türkkonut, http://www.turkkonut.com.tr/eryaman/
cayyolu.htm, last accessed: January, 2006).
Figure 5. 15: Aerial view of Çayyolu II
Source: Türkkonut, 2005:30
Mesa Koru Sitesi
The project of Koru Sitesi which was developed by Mesa Housing Industries
Corporation was started in 1985. The area is located along the Eskişehir Highway
and it covers 1160 dwellings in two-storied row houses, twin and solitary houses,
and apartment blocks ranging in height from 5 to 20 floors as well as 6 villas
having approximately 2400 m2 floor area (Figure 5.16). Koru Sitesi is a qualified
housing estate having adequate urban services such as schools, green areas,
parking lots and shopping centers.
102
Figure 5. 16: Aerial view of Mesa Koru Sitesi
Source: MESA, http://www.grupmesa.gen.tr/sirket_secme.asp?id=9&dil=tr, last
accessed: January, 2006
Konutkent
Konutkent is the other significant project along the Eskişehir Highway. The first
stage of the project, covering 1160 dwellings, was initiated in 1988 and completed
in 1990 and the second stage, covering 1645 dwellings, was initiated in 1990 and
completed in 1994. There are low-rise housing units (duplex and triplex) and
apartment blocks of which heights are ranging from 5 to 15 floors (Figure 5.17).
Figure 5. 17: Aerial view of Konutkent
Source: MESA, http://www.grupmesa.gen.tr/sirket_secme.asp?id=7&dil=tr, last
accessed: January, 2006
103
5.1.5.2 Urban Redevelopment Projects
Apart from the mass housing projects, comprehensive urban redevelopment
projects were suggested in the late 1980s which were put into practice at the
beginning of the 1990s. The most significant examples are Portakal Çiçeği Vadisi
Project, Dikmen Vadisi Project, Geçak (Gecekondudan Çağdaş Konuta) and
Doğukent Southeastern Ankara Development Project. These projects aimed to
sweep away gecekondu areas and control the urban development pattern within
the city, while providing livable residential estates equipped with infrastructure
facilities and better urban services.
Land rents increased in a significant way after the implementation of those
projects most of which were located at Çankaya. Koza Sokak, an urban
redevelopment area within Geçak project, the residential areas in Dikmen and
Yıldız turned to be rentable for the housebuilders. As a result of their increasing
attraction, household pattern changed and high status bureaucrats and
professionals started to occupy the dwellings in those prestigious sites.
5.1.5.3 Urban Development after the 1990s
After the 1990s the tendency of urban development along the south-western and
southern parts of Ankara strengthened. Development activities in Çayyolu gained
a significant importance while many new housing projects were initiated in the
area. These projects, covering low-rise housing units and high-rise blocks (Figure
5.18) with better urban services and lower densities when compared to the central
neighborhoods, have generally been developed by the housing cooperatives.
Apart from Çayyolu, other villages located inside the circumference motorway
have been affected from the expansive residential development. Alacaatlı, İncek
and Dodurga witnessed a significant urbanization. It is important to mention that
the housing developments in these areas include luxurious villas which addresses
to the high-income groups in general (Figure 5.19).
104
Figure 5. 18: A general view from Çayyolu
Figure 5. 19: Villas in İncek
105
The other important housing development was observed in Gölbaşı, after the
second half of the 1990s. The Municipality of Gölbaşı joined to the boundaries of
the Greater Ankara Municipality in 1991. After then, housing development gained
an important speed. However, Gölbaşı is a distinctive area due to the existence of
Mogan Lake and special planning regulations are required to prevent the natural
resources being contaminated and damaged. With regard to this, a Physical
Development Plan at 1/25.000 scale was approved in 1992. The plan was revised
in 2004 and particular zoning decisions were enacted which allows only low-rise
developments with specific restrictions. The neighboring area of the lake is
subjected to these Natural Preservation Plan decisions.
Figure 5. 20: Residential developments around Gölbaşı
After the 2000s, urban expansion through south-western and southern parts of
Ankara continued. The most considerable examples of newly developed areas are:
Beytepe 3rd Stage Development Project in the Çankaya Municipality, Yenikent
and Çayyolu Development Area (İlko Konutları) in the Yenimahalle Municipality.
Urban expansion even passed beyond the Greater Municipality’s boundaries, such
as Temelli Yenihisar Villakent Project. Urban densities are quite low in these
areas when compared to the centrally located neighborhoods and all of these
newly introduced projects cover low-rise housing units and high-rise blocks
106
together, offering different dwelling alternatives to the households. Contemporary
housing developments on the southwestern and the southern parts of the city will
be discussed in a detailed way in the following chapter.
5.1.6 The Composition of Housing Supply in Ankara by the end of the 1990s
with regard to Building Attributes, Occupancy, House Builder
Characteristics and Household Preferences
It is important to demonstrate the current situation and actual formation of
housing market in Ankara with regard to the household and housebuilder
characteristics in order to reveal the dynamics assisting the urban sprawl and the
population decentralization throughout the urban fringe.
5.1.6.1 Housing Production
Ankara is the second most populated city of Turkey, after İstanbul, and the
increase of urban population in Ankara has not ceased yet, since the rate of urban
population increase has been 22% in the last decade while the number of
individuals living in Ankara (urban) reached 3.540.522 by the end of the 20th
century (Table 5.1). In accordance with the population increase, the number of
residential buildings and the number of dwellings increased in the last decade
(Table 5.2). It can be argued that more apartments14 were produced than single
houses15 in the 1984-2000 period since the proportional increase in the number of
dwellings exceeds that of residential buildings.
14 Apartment relates to multi-story residential buildings covering more than two dwellings. 15 Single house relates to 1-2 story residential buildings.
107
Table 5. 1: Population change in Ankara in 1990-2000 period
Population
in 1990 Population
in 2000 % of Population Increase in 1990-2000 period (per year)
Ankara 3236378 4007860 21.37% Ankara-Urban 2836802 3540522 22.15% % of Urban Population
87.6% 88.3%
Source: SIS, www.die.gov.tr/nufus_sayimi/2000tablo3.xls, last accessed: April
2006
Table 5. 2: The increase in the number of residential buildings and dwellings in the 1984-2000 period in Ankara (within the boundaries of Greater Ankara Municipality)
1984 2000 % Increase
Number of Residential Buildings
Number of Dwellings
Number of Residential Buildings
Number of Dwellings
Number of Residential Buildings
Number of
Dwellings
203984 561953 304837 986865 49% 76% Source: SIS The data of construction permits and occupancy permits, which was provided
from State Institute of Statistics (SIS) in May 2006, demonstrate that in the last
fifteen years, more apartment dwellings were produced in Ankara (within the
Greater Ankara Municipality’s boundaries) when compared to the production of
single houses (Figure 5.20). However, total number of apartment and single house
production changes from one municipality to another.
108
For instance, in recent years the amount of the production of single houses is
greater in Yenimahalle16 than the other municipalities (Figure 5.21). The reason of
high rates of single house production in Yenimahalle is mostly related to the low-
rise housing developments in Çayyolu.
Apart from this, the increase in single house production is relatively high in
Gölbaşı. Although the total amount of housing production is low, the share of the
single house production exceeds the other municipalities – except for Yenimahalle
–, in recent years.
However, the amount of the production of low-rise, single houses has always been
quite low in Keçiören, Altındağ, Mamak and Sincan. On the other hand, it is
obvious that apartment production has been favored in these municipalities as
well as in Çankaya (Figure 5.22).
As a result, the share of single housing units is lower than the share of apartment
dwellings in Ankara. When the housing production is considered in spatial sense,
apartment production is more prevalent on the northern and on the south-eastern
parts of Ankara while single house production is more prevalent in Yenimahalle
(particularly in Çayyolu locality), Gölbaşı and Etimesgut than the other
municipalities.
16 Yenimahalle Municipality is comprised of two locationally separate areas: Çayyolu locality (on the south-western part of the city) and Yenimahalle-Batıkent locality (on the northern part of the city) (Figure 5.13).
109
Construction Permits
691
770
932
505
791
943
1709
986
849
1531
591
764
621
1798
364
1787
2345
8
4768
3
3463
8
2606
5
4407
1
3965
13525
2
2570
8
2372
8
2341
13203
5
4049
0
4530
0
3826
5
2244
3
2542
8
05000
100001500020000250003000035000400004500050000
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Years
Num
bero
fUni
ts
Single Housing Unit Apartment Dwelling
Occupati on Permits
966
195
2
100
5
733
161
8
758
713
834
20
20
116
9
634
26
30
254
3
748
206
109
5
491
89
7195
2
2373
0
2380
9
3160
8
2563
7
2262
0
220
47
2402
8
2639
7
24
061
2444
9
3019
9
21
197
1732
3
2320
8
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Years
Num
bero
fUni
ts
Single Housing Unit Apartment Dwellings
Figure 5. 21: Construction permits and occupation permits in Ankara in the 1990-2005 period.
Source: SIS, 2006
110
Figure 5. 22: Construction permits and occupation permits for the single houses in the 1990-2005 covering the municipalities within Greater Ankara Municipality
Source: SIS, 2006
Construction Permits for Single Houses
0100200300400500600700800900
1000
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Years
Num
ber o
f Uni
ts
Altındag Çankaya Etimesgut GölbasiKeciören Mamak Sincan Yenimahalle
Occupation Permits for Single Houses
0200400600800
100012001400160018002000220024002600
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Years
Num
ber o
f Uni
ts
Altındag Çankaya Etimesgut GölbasiKeciören Mamak Sincan Yenimahalle
111
Figure 5. 23: Construction permits and occupation permits for the apartment dwellings in the 1990-2005 covering the municipalities within Greater Ankara Municipality
Source: SIS, 2006
Construction Permits for Apartment Dwellings
0100020003000400050006000700080009000
100001100012000130001400015000160001700018000
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Years
Num
ber o
f Uni
ts
Altındag Çankaya Etimesgut GölbasiKeciören Mamak Sincan Yenimahalle
Occupation Permits for Apartment Dwellings
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Years
Num
ber o
f Uni
ts
Altındag Çankaya Etimesgut GölbasiKeciören Mamak Sincan Yenimahalle
112
5.1.6.2 Spatial Distribution of Population
Increasing urban population and planning decisions assisted the urban sprawl and
resulted in the expansion of urban boundaries. Urban population which was
jammed into an area of 11 km diameter from the center17 during the 1970s started
to move to the periphery, particularly after the second half of the 1980s and many
households moved from the centrally located neighborhoods to the outskirts.
After the 1990s, decentralization process accelerated and extended towards the
areas beyond the 11th km. For instance, Or-An is located between the 11th and 12th
circles along the southern corridor, Batıkent is between the 16th and 20th circles
and Eryaman in between the 21st and 22nd circles along the north-western corridor
while Çayyolu is located between the 14th and 15th circles along the western
corridor. Today, although the population agglomeration is quite high between the
3rd-13th km from the center, it decreases to moderate levels after the 13th km and
residential areas expand even beyond the 28th km from the city center (Figure
5.24).
17 Topçu states that The Hittite Sun Statue on Sıhhiye Square is accepted as the central location (Topçu, 2004:70).
113
Figure 5. 24: Comparison of 1970, 1985, 1990 and 2000 population censuses in terms of population distribution with distance from the CBD in Ankara
Source: Topçu, 2004:75
114
5.1.6.3 Housing Characteristics, Household and Housebuilder Attributes
State Institute of Statistics (SIS) carried out a housing survey in 1999 covering 9
cities: Adana, Ankara, Gaziantep, İçel, İstanbul, İzmir, Samsun, Şanlıurfa and
Van. The survey aimed to reveal the housing characteristics and the households
attributes in these cities. In order to reveal the general housing and household
characteristics in Ankara, the findings of this survey will be used in the following
part.
The evidences show that most of the households are living in apartment dwellings
in Ankara (Figure 5.25). Indeed apartment dwellers constitute approximately 70%
of the households. Most of them used to live in 4 or 5 storied apartments which
are not located in housing estates (Figure 5.26). At this point, it is important to
mention that the percentage of detached houses not located in a housing estate
appears to be high since the number includes gecekondus.
Number of Households by type of building including the dwelling unit
Apartment not located in a
housing estate 57%
Apartment located in a
housing estate 13%
Detached house not located in a housing estate
29%
Detached house located in a
housing estate1%
Figure 5. 25: Percentages of households by type of building including the dwelling unit in Ankara
Source: SIS, 2004:79
115
Number of stories by type of building including the dwelling unit
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10+
Total number of buildings in each type according to the number of stories
Num
ber o
f hou
seho
lds
Detached house not located in a housing estateDetached house located in a housing estateApartment not located in a housing estateApartment located in a housing estate
Figure 5. 26: Distribution of households with regard to the number of stories by type of building in Ankara
Source: SIS, 2004:80
Ownership is quite prevalent among the households (Figure 5.27). However, it is
important to remind that the percentage covers gecekondu owners as well. When
the way of owning the dwelling is questioned, it is appeared that nearly 60% of
them bought the dwelling from a contractor, the previous owner or a public
institution (Figure 5.28).
Furthermore, one of the most interesting outcomes is that nearly three-forth of the
households are not satisfied with their dwelling units (SIS, 2004:106) and 74% of
them would prefer to live in a single house (Figure 5.29).
116
Ownership Status of the Dwelling Unit
Tenant33%
Lodgement1%
Owner59%
Not the owner but no rent is paid
7%
Figure 5. 27: Percentages of ownership status of the dwelling units in Ankara
Source: SIS, 2004:92
Households Way of Owning to the Dwelling Unit
Built by hiring construction
workers20%
Built by a contractor in
return to dwelling unit
3%
Owned from a building
cooperative10%
Other2%
Inheritance or transferred
5%
Bought from a contractor, the previous owner
or a public organization
60%
Figure 5. 28: Percentages of households’ way of owning the dwelling unit in Ankara
Source: SIS, 2004:93
117
Preferred Type of Building for Living
Detached house located in a
housing estate24%
Apartment not located in a
housing estate17%
Apartment located in a
housing estate9%
Detached house not located in a housing estate
50%
Figure 5. 29: Percentages of preferred type of building for living in Ankara
Source: SIS, 2004:107
Apart from these, it is a fact that private car ownership has become prevalent
among the households in recent years. The car ownership reached 196 cars per
1000 person in 2003 according to the SIS statistics (SIS,
http://www.die.gov.tr/nuts/121d3.xls, last accessed: April, 2006). The rate of
increase accelerated obviously after the 90s (Figure 5.30) while nearly one third of
the households own at least one car by the end of the 20th century (Figure 5.31).
However, public transportation (including public bus, minibus, metro, and
railway) is still the most used commuting mode among the individuals (Figure
5.32). The median time for different modes are 20 minutes for private car, 30-35
minutes for public transport, 30 minutes for service and 15 minutes for walking
(SIS, 2004:78).
118
Cars/1000 Inhabitant
0
50
100
150
200
1935 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 1994 2003
Figure 5. 30: Car ownership levels in Ankara since 1935.
Source: Babalık, 1996:73 and SIS, http://www.die.gov.tr/nuts/121d3.xls, last
accessed: April, 2006
Private Car Ownership
Households not having a private
car66%
Households having 2+
private cars2%
Households having 1 private
car32%
Figure 5. 31: Percentages of private car ownership in Ankara
Source: SIS, 2004:111
119
Mode of Commuting
Service20%
Other5% Unknown
1%Private car
19%
Public transport43%
Walking12%
Figure 5. 32: Mode of commuting in Ankara
Source: SIS, 2004:78
Finally when the housing supply side is considered, it is obvious that private
sector housebuilders – particularly the contractors that work in return to flat –
dominate the industry while the share of house building cooperatives is 13%
which tents to be above the Turkey average. Public sector, on the other hand,
appears to be not very active in housing production (Figure 5.33).
120
Method of Construction of the Building Including the Dwelling Unit
Unknown20%
Public Organization
(lojman)2%
Contractor in return to flat
25%Contractor on his own plot
7%
House building cooperative
13%
Subcontractor hired by the
owner of the plot7%
Owner of the plot himself or the
hired construction workers
22%
Public Organization
3%Other1%
Figure 5. 33: Percentages of the buildings including the dwelling unit according to the type of housebuilders in Ankara
Source: SIS, 2004:83
5.2 Critical Review of (Sub)Urban Development in Ankara
Urban pattern of Ankara has changed due to demographic movements, socio-
economic conditions, planning decisions and externalities, since its proclamation
as the Capital of Turkish Republic. At the initial phases the city was reflecting a
compact form, but after the 1970s urban decentralization started to relieve the
increasing urban density stress at the center, to some extend.
The first problem facing the city was increasing urban population as a result of the
rural to urban migration. Housing prices increased due to the inadequate supply;
thus, the new comers, for whom the existing stock was unaffordable, began to
occupy the unauthorized housing units named as gecekondu. After the 1940s, the
periphery was mainly occupied by gecekondu areas and the city was jammed into
a restricted urban area. At the meantime, many of these illegal developments were
legalized by some Amnesty Laws which tended to serve for populist policies.
121
Meanwhile authorized low-rise housing stock which dominated the city space in
the early days of the Republic replaced by apartment blocks particularly after the
enactment of the Condominium Law (Kat Mülkiyeti Kanunu, Law No: 634) in
1965. Increasing densities within the city together with illegal housing
developments at the urban fringe brought about many successive problems such
as declining urban core, congestion, inefficient urban services, inadequate
infrastructure facilities and air pollution. Unfortunately the planning attempts
were imprudence and ineffective to control the ad-hoc sprawl of the city and
prevent urban decline.
In order to manage the urban development and cope with the increasing problems,
Ankara Metropolitan Plan Bureau was founded. After comprehensive analysis a
new Structure Plan was introduced aiming to bring to the city a new vision and
give to the urban development a new direction. The most significant decision
related to the formation of urban fringe was the introduction of mass housing
projects. The projects were suggested to overcome the congested pattern and
provide affordable housing units for particularly the middle income groups. Urban
periphery, previously occupied by illegal housing developments started to acquire
a new form by these large scale projects.
In fact the introduction of mass housing projects was a milestone for development
of low-rise housing. Increasing land prices within the urban area due to the
intensive urbanization prevented low-rise, low-density housing areas to be
developed in the city. On the other hand relatively lower land prices and available
land gave the opportunity of developing low-density estates comprising low-rise
housing units.
After the mid-80s, urban decentralization and mass housing developments became
quite prevalent and the locational choice for the urban development shifted from
north-western parts to the south-western (particularly along the Eskişehir
Highway) and southern (particularly in Gölbaşı) parts of the city. Particularly after
122
the second half of the 1990s, luxurious housing estate development became
popular at the urban fringe.
It is worth mentioning that there is still an emphasis on the development of the
western and the southern corridors. Newly built sites and prospective projects
cover low-rise housing units and apartments together but the high-rise blocks are
compensated with relatively lower densities and better urban services when
compared to the centrally located neighborhoods. Housing cooperatives dominate
the large scale projects at the fringe and daily commuting is fundamentally based
on private cars because it is difficult and inefficient to provide a functioning
public transport system for the newly built sites which are scattered on a large
area.
5.3 Concluding Hypotheses
In the first chapter, a general deduction is represented considering two sides of
housing sector – the demand side and the supply side – in a theoretical
framework. In the forth chapter, Ankara case is focused on pursuant to the
explanation of (sub)urbanization and accordingly low-rise housing development
in developed countries and in Turkey. After discussing the rationalities of
households and housebuilders on the basis of urban economic approach, as well as
considering the special characteristics of low-rise housing development in Ankara,
following hypotheses are put which will be questioned in the case studies.
Ho: Urban densities and accordingly floor area ratio (FAR) falls with
increasing distance from the city center for all types of housing. [1]
Ho: Outskirt developments comprise both low-rise housing units and high-
rise apartments together in Ankara which are compensated with lower
densities and better urban services when compared to the centrally located
neighborhoods. [2]
123
Ho: Households who are living at the low-rise housing units at the fringe
are expected to be the owners and generally families with children while
the unit is expected to be large in size having more than three rooms in
each unit. [3]
Ho: Households preferring the low-rise residential areas at the fringe are
expected to be the professionals and high-status managers with a good
educational background in general. [4]
Ho: Households, living at the low-rise housing areas at the outskirts are
expected to use the private car in daily commuting. [5]
Ho: Households are supposed to consider the distance between the house
and the workplace when they are deciding the location of their residences,
however living close to the workplace is not the only and the prominent
factor of the locational choice of the house. [6]
Ho: Households are expected to compensate the negative transport costs
and high maintenance costs of low-rise houses with intimacy, a prestigious
environment and better urban services. [7]
Ho: The main housebuilder group is expected to be the housing
cooperatives for the low-rise residential development while private
sector/speculative housebuilders continue to prefer building high-rise
apartment estates at the fringe. [8]
124
CHAPTER 6
LOW-RISE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS ON THE SOUTH-WESTERN
AND SOUTHERN PARTS OF ANKARA: A FURTHER STUDY ON
ÇAYYOLU AND GÖLBAŞI
In this section, low-rise housing developments on the south-western and southern
parts of Ankara will be focused on, considering the formerly put hypotheses. In
that sense, the study is divided in two major parts: the development along the
Eskişehir Highway and the development in Gölbaşı. First, suburban development
along the Eskişehir Highway will be studied with regard to the municipal
boundaries. Then, Gölbaşı case will be examined according to the zoning
regulations entailed by the Natural Preservation Plan decisions. Finally, the case
studies will be complemented with a questionnaire to reveal household attributes
and preferences living in low-rise houses in these areas.
6.1 Urban Development on the South-western Part of the City along the
Eskişehir Highway
Low-rise housing development along the Eskişehir Highway will be discussed in
three subheadings since the area is under the authorization of two municipalities
(Çankaya Municipality and Yenimahalle Municipality) and there are also some
developments beyond the Greater Ankara Municipality’s boundaries such as
Temelli Yenihisar Villakent Project.
125
6.1.1 Low-rise Housing Development along the Eskişehir Highway ,within the
Boundaries of the Çankaya Municipality
The two considerable low-rise housing developments within the boundaries of the
Çankaya Municipality along the Eskişehir Highway are Beysukent and Angora
Evleri. Another area, Beykent 3rd Stage, has been recently developed by the
Municipality (Figure 6.1).
Hacettepe University
Bilkent University
Middle East Tech. Univ.
N
No Scale
Figure 6. 1: Development plan of the Çankaya Municipality, Ankara
6.1.1.1 Beysukent
Beysukent is located next to the Hacettepe University Campus in Çayyolu District
(Figure 6.2). The area covers only low-rise houses. Development of the area,
126
which was started in late 1980s, was undertaken by the housing cooperatives
(Figure 6.3) as well as the individual house builders (Figure 6.4). There are
housing estates such as Beyköy Sitesi, Altınşehir Sitesi, Ankara 85 Sitesi in
addition to individually built houses. Today, Beysukent comprises approximately
700 housing units, of which Floor Area Ratios are ranging between 0.35 and 0.70.
Hacettepe University
No Scale
Figure 6. 2: Location of Beysukent
127
Figure 6. 3: Ankara 85 Sitesi, Beysukent
Figure 6. 4: Individually built houses in Beysukent
128
6.1.1.2 Angora Evleri
Angora Evleri is one of the most prestigious sites of Ankara which is located on
the southern part of Beysukent, next to the Hacettepe University Campus (Figure
6.5). The area, of which development started in the 1990s with the expropriation
of an area of nearly 200 ha around Beysukent locality by the Greater Ankara
Municipality, covers luxurious villas and apartment dwellings.
Figure 6. 5: Locality and Urban Design of Angora Evleri
129
Barmek İnşaat undertook the project on behalf of SS Konut 18 Yapı Kooperatifi.
Proposed plan was covering 930 villas (Figure 6.6) and 1030 apartment blocks
(Figure 6.7). The area was designed in terms of building blocks, instead of single
parcels and there are three major types of buildings: Villas, Row Blocks (4 or 5
stories) and Point Blocks (10, 12 or 14 stories). Areas of 6 building blocks are
given on Table 6.1 as examples which cover different types of buildings.
Figure 6. 6: Villas, Angora Evleri
Figure 6. 7: Row Houses and Point Blocks, Angora Evleri
130
Figure 6. 8: Plan of Angora Evleri
Table 6. 1: A Sample of the Building Block Number, The Area of the Building Block and the Total Number of Housing Units of Different Types on that Building Block
Building Block Area (m²) Housing Units on the Building Blocks
A 18949 11067 16 villas B 18951 25703 1 point block, 6 row blocks, 17 villas C 18957 22852 2 point blocks, 6 row blocks D 18979 23251 4 row blocks, 26 villas E 18999 7321 1 row block, 8 villas F 18998 5959 8 villas
131
It is important to mention that both the villas and the dwelling in high-rise units
are quite spacious. There are five types of villas: Barmek Villa, Triplex Barmek
Villa, Barmek Villa with basement floor, Cooperative Villa with basement floor
and Cooperative Villa without basement floor. Row Blocks, either 4 storied or 5
stories are divided into two groups: those with garage and without garage. Point
Blocks are uniform regardless of the number of stories (Table 6.2).
Table 6. 2: The Total Building Areas of Cooperative Villas, Row Blocks (5-storied) and Point Blocks (10-storied)
Villa with basement floor without basement floor total building area (net, m²) 347 285 total building area (gross, m²) 403 329
Row Block (5 stories) without garage with garage total building area (net, m²) 2944 4744 total building area (gross, m²) 3388 5458
Point Block (10 stories) total building area (net, m²) 5037 total building area (gross, m²) 5722
Although Angora Evleri is one of the most prestigious and qualified housing
estates in the city, the legal process has not been performed regularly in the
previous stages of development and even the Subdivision Plans (Parselasyon
Planı) have not been approved by the Municipality yet. Therefore, the area has an
unauthorized status today.
132
6.1.1.3 Beytepe 3rd Stage
The most recent project that was developed by the Çankaya Municipality is
‘Beytepe 3rd Stage Project’. The implementation plan covers 800ha area, at the
southern part of the Çayyolu District and subdivision plans have been recently
approved by the Municipality. Project area covers both low-rise housing units and
apartments where the Floor Area Ratios are determined as 0.50-0.75 for detached
houses and villas, and 1.30-1.50 for apartment blocks. (Figure 6.9).
Figure 6. 9: The Plan of Beykent 3rd Stage
133
6.1.2 Low-rise Housing Development along the Eskişehir Highway, within the
Boundaries of the Yenimahalle Municipality
Urban development on southwestern part of the city administrated by the
Yenimahalle Municipality covers 5 major districts – Ümitköy, Koru, Konutkent,
Buketkent and Yenikent – as well as Çayyolu II. In addition to this, municipial
boundaries enclose two major villages – Alacaatlı and Dodurga – which have
already been affected from the mass suburbanization.
Housing cooperatives pioneered the residential development and they are still the
major house builders of low-rise housing developments operating in the area.
Housing estates are comprised of either low-rise houses or high-rise apartment
blocks, or in some areas both of them. There are more than 30 housing estates
covering only the low-rise houses such as Hukukçu Dostlar Sitesi, Çamkoru
Sitesi, Gözde Sitesi; in addition to the housing estates covering both low-rise and
high-rise blocks together such as Mesa Koru Sitesi (Figure 6.10).
The number of housing units in the existing low-rise housing stock covered by the
over-mentioned housing estates is nearly 3000 (Table 6.3), but the vast
construction activities – particularly in Çayyolu Development Area and in
Yenikent – are signaling that the number will likely be doubled in a few years
time.
134
Beyazgul S.
B eril S.
Hukukçu Dostlar
Is BankalılarTugberkDoğa
Yiğitler
Başkent Doktorlar
HavadarElin
Seçkin Emek
Mavişehir
Çamkoru
Gözde S.MalikentGonca S.
AnadoluSiyasal
Orun S.
Erdemkent
Sizin Evler
Yıldız 88
Onur S.
Gazililer
Sekerkent OzdoğaS.
Figure 6. 10: Housing Estates Comprised of Low-rise Housing Units in Çayyolu, within the Boundaries of the Yenimahalle Municipality
135
Table 6. 3: Housing estates covering low-rise houses and the total number of units
Names of the Housing Estates (Sites) Total Number of Housing Units
Seçkin Emek Sitesi 148 Yeşilkent Sitesi 105 Atakent 104 Yeni Mavişehir Sitesi 85 Apkan Sitesi (Yeşiltepe Evleri) 159 Çamkoru Sitesi 110 Gözde Sitesi 65 Gonca Sitesi 88 Malikent 42 Altın Terazi Sitesi 100 Başkent Doktorlar Sitesi 100 Deste Sitesi 174 Güvengir Sitesi 100 Elin Sitesi 82 Havadar Sitesi 104 Doruk Sitesi 28 Yiğitler Sitesi 48 Yarenler Sitesi 62 İş Bankalılar Sitesi 80 Tuğberk Sitesi 60 Doğa Sitesi 100 Beyazgül Sitesi 324 Birlikkent 30 Beril Sitesi 154 Temsa Sitesi 24 Ankara Evleri 24 Hukukçu Dostlar Sitesi 150 Anadolu Evleri 52 Mesa Koru Sitesi 120 Siyasal Sitesi 60 Orun Sitesi 108
TOTAL 2990
136
6.1.2.1 Explanatory Values (Land Coverage Ratios, Floor Area Ratios and
Total Gross Area of Buildings) for the Developed and Developing Parts of the
Area
Land Coverage Ratios (LCR) and Floor Area Ratios (FAR) of low-rise housing
areas, and total gross area of single building take different values in already
developed areas and developing parts. Indeed, LCRs are changing among 0.20,
0.30, 0.35, 0.40 and FARs are changing among 0.40, 0.60, 0.70 and 0.80.
In housing estates such as Seçkin Emek Sitesi, Mavişehir Sitesi, Çamkoru Sitesi,
Akşar Sitesi, Başkent Doktorlar Sitesi, Tuğberk Sitesi, Doğa Sitesi, İş Bankalılar
Sitesi, Yiğitler Sitesi, Yarenler Sitesi etc. (Figure 6.11), gross areas of each house
is determined as 120m2 while LCR is 0.40 and FAR is 0.80.
Beril Sitesi and Mesa Koru Sitesi differ from the other housing estates in terms of
LCR, FAR and gross area of each single house. In Beril Sitesi, LCR is 0.35 and
FAR is 0.70 according to the subdivision plan notes coded 72600. Moreover, it is
determined that gross area of a house should not exceed 135m2 in detached villas
while the maximum height should be 6.50m (Figure 6.12). In Mesa Koru Sitesi
(Figure 6.13), LCR is 0.30 and FAR is 0.60. It is clear that, FAR and LCR values
are smaller in these housing estates while the total gross areas of the buildings are
larger when compared to the other housing estates.
137
Figure 6. 11: Examples of currently occupied housing estates in Çayyolu
138
N
No Scale
Figure 6. 12: Plan of Beril Sitesi and photographs from Beril
N
No Scale
Figure 6. 13: Plan of Mesa Koru Sitesi and photographs from the Mesa Koru
139
Apart from the existing housing estates, there are two considerable low-rise
housing development examples: Çayyolu Development Area and Yenikent
Bahçelievler (Figure 6.14), within the boundaries of Yenimahalle Municipality.
Figure 6. 14: Developing Areas in Çayyolu: Yenikent and İlko Konutları
N
No Scale
140
Development area of Çayyolu, has been developed by İLKO Housing
Cooperative, therefore the area is generally known as İLKO Konutları (Figure
6.15). Housing Cooperative provided the land and the architectural plans of
housing units for the households. Then, individuals either built their houses
themselves or get them built. The process, which was started in the second half of
the 1990s, has not been completed yet but the construction activities are
continuing extensively (Figure 6.16).
Figure 6. 15: Subdivision Plan of Çayyolu Development Area (İLKO Konutları)
Plan notes state that houses in İLKO should have 2 stories of which LCR is 0.20
and FAR is 0.40, while only one duplex house can be built on a single parcel. In
addition to this, it is stated that facades should be minimum 13m in corner parcels
and 11m in other parcels. It can be inferred from the plan decisions that a low-rise
and low-density suburban area intended to be developed. But it will likely take
some time to create a qualified living environment since the area has an
appearance of a worksite currently while lacking some basic services such as
street lightening and public transportation.
141
Figure 6. 16: İlko Konutları
There are some other developments neighboring İLKO, such as Metiş Country
Villaları (Figure 6.17) on the northwestern part, Orun Villaları (Figure 6.18) and
Siyasal Sitesi (Figure 6.19) on the northeastern part and İshakağa Konutları on the
eastern part (Figure 20). These housing estates are comprised of luxurious, large
villas. For example in Metiş Country Villaları, there are 32 villas; the net area of
each is as large as 450 m2.
Figure 6. 17: Metiş Country Villaları
142
Figure 6. 18: Orun Sitesi
Figure 6. 19: Siyasal Sitesi
Figure 6. 20: İshakağa Villaları
143
Yenikent Bahçelievler is the other important residential development area (Figure
6.21). It is asserted that LCR is 0.40 and FAR is 0.80 in two-storied houses in
subdivision plan notes coded 84016/3. Yenikent Bahçelievler also covers three-
storied buildings where floor areas are allocated to commercial activities while the
second and the third stories are allocated to residential use. In such areas, LCR is
determined as 0.40 while FAR is determined as 1.20. Although the subdivision
has already been completed, construction activities are quite few currently (Figure
6.22).
Figure 6. 21: Subdivision Plan of Yenikent
144
Figure 6. 22: Current Situation of Yenikent Bahçelievler Development Area
Apart from the low-rise developments, considerable high-rise developments have
been planned by the Yenimahalle Municipality (Figure 6.23) where LCR is
determined as 0.35 and FAR is determined as either 1 or 1.50 in the plan notes.
For instance, subdivision plan notes coded 84159 assert that gross densities would
be 200 people per hectare and maximum gross area of a dwelling should be 150
m2 except for the balconies.
Figure 6. 23: High-rise Blocks in Yenikent
145
6.1.3 Low-rise Housing Development along the Eskişehir Highway, beyond
the boundaries of the Greater Ankara Municipality: Temelli Yenihisar
Villakent Project
The other conspicuous residential development of the recent years is Temelli
Yenihisar Villakent Project which was initiated in the 2000s. The area is located
about 45 km away from the center of Ankara along the Eskişehir Highway within
the boundaries of the Temelli Municipality (Figure 6.24). The project, which
covers about 2740 low-rise housing units (villas) and 150 apartment blocks, is
undertaken by Türkkonut. In low-rise housing areas FARs are ranging between
0.40 and 0.50, while in high-rise apartment areas the value is increasing to 1,00
and 1,20.
Figure 6. 24: Location of Temelli-Yenihisar Villakent Project in Ankara Metropolitan Area
Source: Türkkonut 2005:41
N
No Scale
146
Türkkonut provides the infrastructure of the area and architectural plans of the
units. Housing cooperatives or individuals are expected to build the houses
according to these architectural plans. The system is named as ‘make your home
yourself (kendi yuvanı kendin yap)’. In the area, health and sports centers,
kindergartens, schools, a police station, post office, cultural and convention
centers and shopping centers have been suggested in the project.
Moreover, financial opportunities are also provided for the households in terms of
long-term, low-interest rate bank credits. Among the 8 housing cooperatives
which undertook some parts of the project, 2 of them have started the construction
activities recently.
Figure 6. 25: Model of the Temelli-Yenihisar Villakent Project
Apart from the project area developed by Türkkonut, there are two distinctive
areas adjacent to Temelli Yenihisar Villakent Project which have been developed
by İdareciler Housing Cooperative and Bayındır Housing Cooperative (Figure
6.26).
147
Figure 6. 26: Plan of Temelli Yenihisar Villakent Project
148
The importance of the project comes from its uniqueness of being an actual
satellite town in Ankara. The leap-frog development will obviously take the outer-
city development pattern of Ankara Metropolitan Area one step further through
the western corridor. Moreover, it is important to mention that although the area
is located quite far from the city; both low-rise and high-rise housing units have
been provided.
6.2 Urban Development in Gölbaşı
In recent years, areas around the Mogan Lake within the Gölbaşı Municipality
have experienced a rapid development. Gölbaşı Municipality joined the Greater
Ankara Municipality boundaries in 1991 and the number of suburban
developments has increased greatly, since then. It is important to mention that the
residential development pattern of Gölbaşı is different from the other development
areas because the land around the Mogan Lake, covering a 245 km2, has been
declared as the ‘Natural Preservation Area’ (Figure 6.27). Therefore urban
development is subject to certain regulations and restricted building codes,
considering the natural environment preservation requirements here.
149
Figure 6. 27: 1/25000 Natural Preservation Plan of Gölbaşı
150
According to the Plan Notes, the area is divided into particular zones with respect
to their locality and development potential, except for the already developed areas
and the village of Gölbaşı. In the first zone, adjacent to the Gölbaşı village, FAR
is determined as 0.20, while the minimum subdivision of land is 750m2, and the
maximum building height is 6,50m. In the next zone to the new development area,
which has lost its agricultural characteristics and where the demand for urban
land-uses is quite high, FAR is determined as 0.15, the minimum subdivision of
land is 1500m2, and the maximum building height is 6,50m. There are more than
40 Housing Cooperatives18 operating currently within the Natural Preservation
Area, in these two zones of development (Figure 6.28).
Apart from the development areas, 10 villages (Hacılar, Hacıhasan, Ballıkpınar,
Yavrucak, Gökçehöyük, Yağlıpınar, Oğulbey, Karaoğlan, Yurtbeyi, Örencik) are
located within the boundaries of the Natural Preservation Area. In these areas
FAR is determined as 0.20 while the minimum subdivision of land is 1000m2, and
the maximum building height is 6,50m. In their neighboring development areas to
these villages, FAR is determined as 0.20 while the minimum subdivision of land
is 1500m2, and the maximum building height is 6,50m.
18 Tuhafiyeciler Koop., Avcılar Koop., Adost Koop, Fizikçiler Koop., Elektrokent Koop., Güvencem Sitesi, Müzikçiler Koop., Göl Koop., Müzik Sevenler-1 Koop., Müzik Sevenler-2 Koop., Ak Konut Koop, Şiringöl Koop., Villa Kur Koop., Yurdum Koop., Kır Konakları, Uçhisar Koop., Merkez Kent, Oğuz Koop., Gülce Koop., Göl Koop., Songülen Koop., Öğretmenler Koop., Huzur Sitesi, Mogan Koop., Görkem Koop., Demirkent, Örenkent Koop., Doktorlar Sitesi, Hipokratlar Sitesi, İlk Şafak Koop, Başkent Koop., Ece Koop., Yurdum Koop., Gölköy Koop., Yeşil Dostlar Koop., Özgür Koop., Umut Park Koop., Rüya Kent Koop., Öztürk Koop., Papatya Sitesi, TRT 1 Sitesi, Haber 1 Sitesi.
151
Figure 6. 28: Examples of currently occupied housing estates in Gölbaşı
152
Figure 6. 29: Housing estates from Gölbaşı
153
To sum up, Gölbaşı development area comprises only low-rise, low-density
housing areas as a result of the Natural Preservation Plan decisions. However,
urban sprawl is not restricted within the boundaries of the Natural Preservation
Area. Indeed, there is an ongoing suburbanization outside the boundaries,
particularly in İncek, Dodurga and Tuluntaş. İncek primarily covers luxurious
low-rise housing estates while Tuluntaş, which locates beyond the circumscribing
motorway, covers both low-rise housing units and some high-rise blocks, as well.
6.3 Floor Area Ratios of the Study Areas
Urban land rent theories, which were discussed in the second chapter, suggest that
the land rents decrease with the increasing distance from the center, and FARs are
expected to be smaller at the outskirts when compared to the center. With regard
to this, the hypothesis was put in the previous chapter stating that urban densities
and accordingly floor area ratio (FAR) falls with increasing distance from the city
center for all types of housing (Hypothesis [1]).
In that sense, average FARs are calculated for the study area, which covers the
south-western corridor and the southern part of the city. Findings are substantially
in accordance with the theory and the facts support the hypothesis, since FARs
decrease gradually from the CBD to the outskirts. Indeed, the values which are
changing between 2.00 - 4.50 at the center (Topçu, 2004:95), fall to 0.80 and even
0.50 at the outskirts (Figure 6.30).
Moreover it was stated that outskirt developments comprise both low-rise housing
units and high-rise apartments together in Ankara which are compensated with
lower densities and better urban services when compared to the centrally located
neighborhoods (Hypothesis [2]). As mentioned before, currently developed areas
and developing areas cover low-rise houses and apartments. But it is important to
remind that average FARs are still quite low when compared to the centrally
located neighborhoods and these areas are designed considering better urban
services which will be explained in the household questionnaire in a detailed way.
154
Figure 6. 30: Average FARs at the CBD and on the southern part of the city
6.4 Evaluation of the Household Questionnaire
Households living in low-rise houses in Çayyolu have some common attributes. In
the previously stated hypothesis, these households are expected to be mostly the
owners and generally families with children, while the units are expected to be
large in size, having more than three rooms in each unit [3]. They are also
expected to be professionals and high-status managers with a good educational
background [4] who generally use private cars in daily commuting [5]. Moreover,
it is expected that they do not consider living close to the workplace as the
prominent factor of the locational choice of their residences [6] and they
compensate transport costs and high maintenance costs of their houses with
intimacy, prestigious environment and better urban services [7].
2.1 - 4.50 1.26 - 2.0 0.51 - 1.25 - 0.50
Average FARs
CBD
Temelli Yenihisar
155
A household questionnaire survey was carried out in order to reveal the
characteristics of the low-rise housing developments in Çayyolu with respect to
household and housebuilder attributes. Among the 45 housing estates which cover
only low-rise houses, 20 of them19 were selected randomly and the survey was
performed on 196 households. The number of households was determined with
regard to the total number of housing units in each housing estate. Indeed, 14
households were questioned in the housing estates where the total number of
housing units exceeds 100, while 7 households were questioned in other housing
estates where the total number of housing units is below 100.
The questionnaire aimed to demonstrate the general characteristics of the
households, their residential preferences, commuting activities, trade-offs that are
facing them and the level of their satisfaction from the residences and the urban
environment. The outcomes are quite informative to understand the household
rationality, and to deduct a rough categorization of individuals who prefer to live
in low-rise houses which are relatively far from the city center.
6.4.1 General Characteristics of the Households
The outcomes show that most of the households are the owners while only 20
households are living in tenant status (Figure 6.31). Monthly rents are changing
between 450 YTL and 1200 YTL, most of which are between 550 YTL and 750
YTL (Figure 6.32). Moreover, 89% of the households had been living in an
apartment dwelling before moving to their low-rise houses (Figure 6.33).
19 The selection of samples and the execution of interviews were undertaken by ‘Veri-Araştırma A.Ş.’, on contract with the Scientific Research Projects (BAP) of coordination unit of METU. The names of selected housing estates are: Seçkin Emek Sitesi, Yeşilkent, Uyum Sitesi, Atakent, Mavişehir, Gözde Sitesi, Gonca Sitesi, Çamkoru Sitesi, Akşar Sitesi, Malikent, Doğa Sitesi, Beyazgül Sitesi, Mesa Koru Sitesi, İş Bankalılar Sitesi, Hukukçu Dostlar Sitesi, Başkent Doktorlar Sitesi, Beril Sitesi, Altınşehir Sitesi, Ankara 85 Sitesi and Beyköy Sitesi.
156
Ownership Status
Tenant11% ; (21)
Owner89% ; (175)
Figure 6. 31: Ownership statuses of the households
Monthly Rents of Houses
01234567
450-54
9
550-64
9
650-74
9
750-84
9
850-94
9
950-10
49
1050-1
149
1150-1
250
Rent/month(YTL)
Num
ber o
f Hou
ses
(Ren
ted)
Figure 6. 32: Monthly rents of the houses
The Type of Previous Housing Unit
Single, Low-rise
housing unit11% (22)Apartment
Dwelling89% (174)
Figure 6. 33: The type of the previous housing unit
157
Family sizes are generally ranging between 3 and 5, while there are some
households who live single and a few of them are couples (Table 6.4). The total
number of children in 196 houses equals to 192. In 22 houses there is one child
and in 23 houses there are 2 children who are not studying. In addition to this,
there is one child in 43 houses, 2 children in 34 houses and 3 children in 5 houses
who are studying (Table 6.5). Most of studying children are university students,
while 55 of them are studying in Ankara and 7 of them are studying out of
Ankara20.
Table 6. 4: Household Sizes
Number of Persons in the Household Number of Housing Units
1 person 7 2 people 60 3-5 people 124 6 and more 5
Total 196 Table 6. 5: Number of Children with regard to their Education
Education of the children Number of the children
Not studying 68
Studying 124 Elementary school 33 High school 29 University 62
Total 192
20 They are studying in Boğaziçi University (İstanbul), Anadolu University (Eskişehir), Erciyes University (Kayseri), Kıbrıs and in the Netherlands
158
Apart from the ownership pattern and family sizes; households’ education level,
employment status and occupation are important indicators that help to reveal the
socio-economic status. To begin with, education levels appear to be quite high
since 76% of the household heads have an undergraduate degree and 15% of them
have a graduate degree (Figure 6.34). The number of university graduates is also
high among the household heads’ spouses (Figure 6.35).
Education of the Household Head
University (Undergraduate) 76% ; (150)
High School 7% ; (14)
Elementary School 2% ;
(3)University (Graduate School)
15% ; (29)
Figure 6. 34: Education of the Household Head
Education of the Spouse
High School 27% ; (50)
Elementary School 2% ;
(4)
University(Graduate School)
7% ; (12)
University(Undergraduate) 64% ; (117)
Figure 6. 35: Education of the Household Head’s Spouse
159
When the employment status and occupation are in question, it is worth
mentioning that at least one household is working in 140 houses, while the total
number of working population is equal to 228 (Table 6.6). On the other hand, the
percentage of retired households are considerably high, since 41% of the
household heads and 40% of the household heads’ spouses are retired (Figure
6.36 and Figure 6.37). The fact can be explained as the houses are preferred by
retired people due to some advantages, such as better environmental quality,
quietness and peace. Another explanation would be that retired people who do not
need to commute choose to live in a low-rise house at the periphery. This will be
discussed in detail way while mentioning the reasons that motivate the households
to move to their low-rise houses and their level of satisfaction from their
residences.
Table 6. 6: Working Population
Number of Working Individuals of the Household
Number of Housing Units Working Population
No working household 56 1 person 63 63 2 people 68 136 3 people 7 21
4 people and more 2 8
Total 196 228 The number of regular employees (that covers civil servants and other wage
owners) seems to dominate the others among the working population, since 35%
of household heads and 22% of spouses are working in that status. Household
heads are generally working as scientific, technical and professional staff or as
administrative and managerial staff. The ratio of employment is relatively low
among the spouses; but among the employed ones, scientific, technical and
professional staff is relatively higher then the other occupations (Figure 6.36 and
Figure 6.37).
160
Figure 6. 36: Employment status and occupation of the household head
Employment Status of the Household Head
Retired 41% ; (82)
Not Working; 2% ; (3) Regular
Employee 35%; (69)
Employer 14% ; (27)Self-employed;
8% ; (15)
Occupation of the Household Head
Administrative and managerial
staff 18% ; (35) Scientific,
technical, professional and
related staff 23% ; (47)
Clerical and related workers
9% ; (18)
Not working 2% ; (3)
Retired 41% ; (82)
Factory workers 1% ; (1)
Service workers 1% ; (2)
Commercial and sales workers
5% ; (9)
161
Figure 6. 37: Employment status and occupation of the household head’s spouses
In accordance with the education levels and employment status of the households,
monthly incomes are relatively high21 since 82% of the households’ monthly
incomes exceed 2.000 YTL while 25% of this 82% group monthly incomes are
over 5.000 YTL (Figure 6.38). Regarding the relatively high socio-economic
status and the preference of living far from the city, the level of car ownership is
21 8 households did not mention their monthly incomes.
Employment Status of the Spouse
Regular employee
22% ; (41)
Does not have a spouse
9% ; (16)
Employer 4% ; (8)
Self-employed; 3% ; (4)
Retired 39% ; (78)
Not Working 23% ; (46)
Occupation of the Spouse
Service workers 1% ; (2)
Administrative and managerial
staff 7% ; (13)
Does not have a spouse
8% ; (16)
Not working 23% (46)
Retired 39% ; (78)
Commercial and sales workers
1% ; (2)
Scientific, technical,
professional and related staff 12% ; (23)Clerical and
related workers 9% ; (17)
162
expected to be high. The outcomes confirm this argument since there is at least
one private car in 92% of houses (Figure 6.39).
Monthly Income of a House
29
6 1033
137
3132
54
0102030405060
<1.000 1.000-2.000
2.000-3.000
3.000-4.000
4.000-5.000
5.000-6.000
6.000-7.000
7.000-8.000
8.000-9.000
>9.000
Monthly income (YTL)
Num
ber o
f Hou
seho
lds
Figure 6. 38: Monthly income of households
Private Car Ownership
Does not have a private
car; 8% ; (15)
3 and more cars 8% ;
(16)
1 car 53% ; (104)
2 cars 31% ; (61)
Figure 6. 39: Private car ownership
In fact, correspondence analysis demonstrates that the incomes of the households
who have a private car are relatively higher and those whose monthly incomes are
below 1.000 YTL do not have a private car (Figure 6.40).
163
Yes No>9.0008.000-9.000
7.000-8.0006.000-7.000
5.000-6.0004.000-5.000
3.000-4.000
2.000-3.000 1.000-2.000 <1.0000
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
0,9
1
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5
columnsrows
Figure 6. 40: Correspondence between monthly income (YTL) and private car ownership
6.4.2 The Reasons that Motivate the Households to Move to their Low-rise
Houses in Çayyolu
Households change their residences due to various reasons. Now, it is important to
reveal that reasons which motivate them to move to their low-rise houses in
Çayyolu as well as their locational considerations and the level of their
satisfaction from their residences.
To begin with, 90% of the households had been living in Ankara previously,
while 9% of them came from other provinces (İstanbul, İzmir, Antalya, Trabzon,
Sivas, Hatay, Tekirdağ, Van and Şırnak), and 1% of them came from abroad
(Belgium and Malaysia) to Ankara, Çayyolu (Figure 6.41).
164
City/Country of the Previous Housing Unit
Ankara; 178; 90%
İzmir; 2; 1%
Trabzon; 2; 1%
Antalya; 2; 1%
Other Provinces (Hatay,
Tekirdağ, Van, Şırnak, Sivas);
5; 3%
Abroad (Belgium,
Malaysia); 2; 1%
İstanbul; 5; 3%
Figure 6. 41: City/country where the previous housing unit is located
Those who had been living in Ankara moved from different districts to Çayyolu.
The most significant movement within the city had been from Çankaya-
Gaziosmanpaşa (GOP). In fact 44% of households relocated from Çankaya-GOP
(particularly from Gaziosmanpaşa, Ayrancı, Küçükesat and Oran) to Çayyolu.
The second major group including 26% of households moved from Kızılay,
Bahçelievler and Emek to Çayyolu. The residential movement within Çayyolu
remained relatively lower since only 13% of households changed their residences
within the same district (Figure 6.42).
On the other hand, the percentage of those that moved from the northern part of
the city to Çayyolu is considerably low. Indeed, only 10% of households had
been living in Keçiören, Mamak and Yenimahalle, and 7% of them had been
living in Batıkent, Eryaman and Sincan, before settling in Çayyolu (Figure B). As
a result, it can be argued that the ones who are living in the low-rise housing areas
in Çayyolu generally came from the south-eastern parts and the centrally located
neighborhoods of the city (Figure 6.43).
165
District in which the House was Previously Located
Yüzüncüyıl-Balgat
2% ; (4)
Yenimahalle-Keçiören-Mamak
10% ; (17)
Batıkent-Eryaman-
Sincan4% ; (7)
Kızılay-Bahçelievler26% ; (47)
Çayyolu13% ; (23)
Çankaya44% ; (79)
Gölbaşı1% ; (1)
Figure 6. 42: Location of previous housing units in Ankara
166
Figure 6. 43: Previous locations of the households before moving to Çayyolu
167
Now, it is important to discuss the reasons that motivated the households to move
to low-rise houses in Çayyolu. In that sense, households were asked to mention
the two most important reasons affecting their residential preference. The results
show that households consider the size of the houses as the most important reason.
Second, the prestige and the quality of the housing estate, and third, opportunities
provided by the estate such as green areas, playgrounds and parking lots are
important for the households while moving to their low-rise houses. Households
also appreciate privacy, quietness, unsoiled nature and fresh air (Table 6.7).
Table 6. 7: The most important reasons that motivate the households to move
Ranking Reasons that Motivate the Households to Move that House Frequency
1 The house is large in size 63 2 Prestigious site and better environment 61
3 Opportunities such as green areas, playgrounds and parking lots 60
4 Owning the house 51 5 House has its own backyard 21 6 Privacy and comfort due to being a detached house 16 7 The environment is quiet and peaceful 15 8 House is close to the schools of children 12
9 The environment is clean, nature is unsoiled and full of fresh air 10
10 Close to the children's houses 4 11 House is convenient to feed pet 4 12 House is close to the workplace 4 13 Transportation is easy 3 14 Value/rent of the previous residence was high 3
Actually, in accordance with the ranking, houses are large enough since 174 units’
floor areas are greater than 60 square meters22 and 34 of them greater than 120 m²
(Table 6.8)23. On the other hand, plots are also large in size since the areas of 119
22 However, in many houses, floor areas recorded in construction permits do not include basement and roof floor, which are being added after getting occupancy permits to the useful space of dwelling units. 23 12 households did not answer the question about the area of the house.
168
plots are greater than 150 m² (Table 6.9)24. Moreover, in 175 houses there are at
least 4 rooms and in 35 houses there are more than 6 rooms (Figure 6.44)25.
Indeed, there is an obvious correspondence between “monthly income and the
number of rooms”, since the households with higher incomes live in the houses
that have more rooms (Figure 6.45)
Table 6. 8: Floor Area Ratios of the Houses
Floor Area of the House (m²)
<60 m²
60-79 m²
80-119 m²
120-159 m²
>160 m²
Not known
Total Number of Houses 10 102 36 22 14 12 % 5% 53% 18% 11% 7% 6%
Table 6. 9: Plot Areas
Area of the Plot that the House is Lying on (m²)
150- m²
150-199 m²
200-249 m²
250-299 m²
300-349 m²
350-399 m²
400+ m²
Not known
Total Number of Houses
31 15 42 25 23 6 8 46
% 16% 8% 21% 13% 12% 3% 4% 23%
24 46 households mentioned that they did not know the exact area of the plot, so they did not answer this question. 25 2 households did not respond to the question about the number of rooms in the house
169
01020304050607080
num
ber
of
hous
ing
units
number of rooms
Total Number of Rooms
Number of housesaccording to the number ofrooms in each unit
19 67 73 24 11
3 4 5 6 7
Figure 6. 44: Number of rooms per housing unit
<1.0001.000-2.000
2.000-3.000
3.000-4.000
4.000-5.000
5.000-6.000
6.000-7.000
7.000-8.000
8.000-9.000>9.000
3 4
5
6
7
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
columnsrows
Figure 6. 45: Correspondence between monthly income and the number of rooms
170
6.4.3 Evaluation of the Workplaces and Commuting
Being close to the workplace is not considered to be the most important
consideration of the households while making the residential decision. Only 4
households mentioned that one of the most important reasons that encourage them
to move is closeness of the house to their workplace. Such an outcome may partly
be explained by the high proportion of retired or not working households, since
44% of the household heads and 67% of the spouses have been retired or not
working, as mentioned before. Those who are working, on the other hand, may
probably think that the distance between home and workplace is surmountable.
However, location of the work places is important to figure out the daily
commuting activity in the city. The outcomes indicate that most of the household
heads’ workplaces are located either at the CBD or on the south-eastern parts of
the city. Indeed, an important percentage is working in Kızılay (30%), Dikmen-
Gaziosmanpaşa (23%) and Ulus (7%). Those who work in the same neighborhood
with their residences remain relatively small in number (11 household heads,
corresponding to 6% of total working household heads). Those who are working
on the northern part of the city are 12 households while 5 households are working
out of Ankara (Figure 6.46 and Figure 6.47).
Workplace of the Household Head
Retired or not working 44% ;
(85)
Keçiören 4% ; (7)
Polatlı 1% ; (1)
İstanbul 2% ; (4)
Eskişehir Yolu; 5% ;
(10)
Batıkent-Sincan 3% ;
(5)
Ulus 7% ; (13)
Çankaya-Dikmen-GOP
12% ; (23)
Çankaya-Kızılay 16% ;
(30)
Yenimahalle-Çayyolu 6% ;
(11)
Figure 6. 46: Workplaces of the household heads
171
Figure 6. 47: Locational distribution of the household heads’ workplaces
172
The number of households that do not have a spouse is 16. Among the spouses,
the percentage of the working ones is quite low, as more than half of them are
either retired or not working (Figure 6.48).
When the working spouses are considered it is appeared that the locational
distribution pattern of their workplaces is similar to that of household heads’,
since most of them are working either at the CBD or on the southern part of the
city. Those who work on the northern part are negligible (Figure 6.49).
Workplace of the Spouse
Eskişehir Yolu; 5% ; (9)
Yenimahalle-Çayyolu 4% ;
(8)
Çankaya-Dikmen_GOP
3% ; (6)
Keçiören 2% ; (4)
Lefkoşe 1% ; (1)
Çankaya-Kızılay 12% ;
(24)
Does not have a spouse 8% ;
(16)Retired or not working 65% ;
(127)
Figure 6. 48: Workplaces of the household heads’ spouses
173
Figure 6. 49: Locational distribution of the spouses’ workplaces
174
After mentioning the location of the workplaces, it is important to give some
details about the commuting behavior of the households. Commuting is divided
into three major categories: private car, public transport and service buses. Public
transport refers to public buses and minibuses. Service buses are the buses or
minibuses that belong to the working place or the carrier firms.
The outcomes reveal that both the household heads (Figure 6.50) and the spouses
(Figure 6.51) use private car generally in daily commuting while the shares of
public transport and service buses appear to be quite low.
Household Head's Mode of Commuting
Service Bus 10% ; (11)
Public Transport11% ; (12)
Private Car 79% (89)
Figure 6. 50: Household head’s mode of commuting
Spouse's Mode of Commuting
Service Bus 19% ; (10)
Public Transport 6% ; (3)
Private Car 75% ; (40)
Figure 6. 51: Spouse’s mode of commuting
175
Furthermore, commuting times are changing due to the location of the workplace,
and for some households one way commuting may take about 70 minutes.
However, one-way commuting is between 15 minutes and 40 minutes in general.
That means households spend averagely one hour for transportation in a day,
while in some cases the duration reaches to two hours or more (Figure 6.52 and
Figure 6.53).
Household Head's Daily Commuting Time (One Way)
05
10152025303540
<10 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 - 69 >70Time
Num
ber o
f Ind
ivid
uals
Figure 6. 52: Household head’s daily one way commuting time
Spouse's Daily Commuting Time (One Way)
0
5
10
15
20
<10 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 - 69 >70Time
Num
ber o
f Ind
ivid
uals
Figure 6. 53: Household head’s spouse’s daily one way commuting time
176
Indeed, analysis shows that there is a relation between monthly incomes and
commuting modes. Households, whose monthly incomes are between 4.000 YTL
and 9.000 YTL, use their private cars. On the other hand, those earning 1.000
YTL - 4.000 YTL generally prefer public transport while the use of service buses
is quite prevalent among the households whose monthly incomes are less than
1.000 YTL (Figure 6.54).
<1.000
1.000-2.000
2.000-3.000
3.000-4.0004.000-5.000
5.000-6.000
6.000-7.0007.000-8.000
8.000-9.000>9.000
Private car
Public Transport
Service
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
-1,5 -1 -0,5 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5
columnsrows
Figure 6. 54: Correspondence between monthly income and the mode of commuting
Another relation is evident between occupation of the households and commuting
modes. Professionals, managers and service workers prefer to use private car,
while clerical workers (including the civil servants) generally use service buses
(Figure 6.55).
177
Service W.
Commercial W.
Clerical W.
Professional
Manager
Service
Public transport
Private car
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
-2,5 -2 -1,5 -1 -0,5 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3
columnsrows
Figure 6. 55: Correspondence between occupation and the mode of commuting
Apart from the workplaces and daily commuting of households’, locational
distribution of children’s schools is also important for the daily inner-city activity.
Here, most of the children are going to the schools located within their
neighborhoods or close to their neighborhoods. Eskişehir Highway and Çankaya-
Kızılay are the other districts where the schools are located mostly. There are only
3 students whose schools are on the northern part of the city (Figure 6.56 and
Figure 6.57).
178
Districts of the Schools of Children
Keciören; 1; 1%
Etimesgut; 2; 2%
Out of Ankara; 7; 6%
Çankaya-Kızılay; 18;
14% Çankaya-Dikmen-GOP;
3; 2%
Yenimahalle-Çayyolu; 60;
47%
Eskisehir Yolu; 35; 28%
Figure 6. 56: Location of the schools of children in Ankara
179
Figure 6. 57: Locational distribution of the schools of children
180
As a result, it is clear that workplaces are generally either at the CBD or on the
southern part of the city. In addition to this, schools of children are located within
the same district of their homes or in the neighboring districts. For that reason,
there is an apparent horizontal transportation movement from the south-western
part of the city to the center and to the south-eastern part of the city. Moreover,
the use of private car in daily commuting is quite high among the households.
Particularly managers, professionals and those working in the service sector,
whose monthly incomes are relatively high prefer private car for commuting.
6.4.4 Acquisition of the Houses
As mentioned in the previous parts, housing cooperatives are quite active in the
production of low-rise houses in Çayyolu. When the outcomes of the
questionnaire are examined it is observable that half of the households acquired
the houses by means of the housing cooperatives. In addition to this, nearly one
forth of the households bought the houses from the previous owners and a small
number of households bought the units from house builders (Figure 6.58).
Households' way of acquiring their houses
By means of the Housing Cooperative50% ; (100)
Tenant11% ; (21)
Bought from the builder
6% ; (11)
Bought from the previous owner
28% ; (56)
By means of the Real Estate
Agent1% ; (1)
Inherited2% ; (3)
Individually built2% ; (4)
Figure 6. 58: Households’ way of acquiring their houses
181
There is a significant relation between monthly incomes and the ways of acquiring
the houses. For instance, the highest income groups bought the units from house
builders in general. The lowest income groups, on the other hand, bough their
houses either from previous owners or by means of housing cooperatives (Figure
6.59).
Tenant
House Builder
Previous Owner
HousingCooperative
Other
<1.0001.000-2.000
2.000-3.000
3.000-4.000
4.000-5.000
5.000-6.000
6.000-7.000
7.000-8.000
8.000-9.000
>9.000 YTL
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
columnsrows
Figure 6. 59: Correspondence between monthly incomes and the ways of acquiring the houses
In addition to this, most of the households who acquired their houses by means of
housing cooperatives have been living in their residences for more than 5 years,
while 8 of them have been living for more than 15 years. In recent years, the
changeover has increased since many households, who have been living in their
houses for 1 to 5 years, asserted that they bought their houses from the previous
owners. Most of the tenants, on the other hand, moved to their houses in the
previous 5 years (Table 6.10).
182
Table 6. 10: Household’s way of acquiring the house with regard to the duration of stay
Ways of Acquiring the House
Years Tenant House
Builder Previous Owner
Housing Cooperative Other
<1 year 5 - 6 1 1 1-5 years 10 2 15 12 1 5-10 years 6 2 25 40 4 10-15 years - 5 10 39 3 >15 years - 1 - 8 -
6.4.5 Households’ Opinions about their Houses, and the Level of their
Residential Satisfaction
In the questionnaire, households were asked to mention the two best sides and the
two worst sides of their houses in order to figure out their opinions about the
advantageous and the disadvantageous attributes of living in the low-rise houses
far from the city center. Afterwards, it was asked if they want to move to another
house and if so, whether they will actually move in 6 months time.
The outcomes for the positive aspects are similar with the previously-mentioned
reasons that motivate them to move, but with a different ranking. Households find
the opportunities such as green areas, playgrounds and parking lots, as well as the
quietness and tranquility of the environment as the most advantageous sides of
their houses. Privacy and comfort of the detached house is also important for the
households since it was mentioned for 33 times. However, the size of the house
and the prestige of the estate which were the two most important motivations for
their residential choice ranked at the lower levels, which can be explained as
either the households have changed their opinions after moving or they have not
been satisfied enough about these items.
183
Table 6. 11: The Two Most Important Advantages of the Houses
Ranking Best Sides of Living in a Low-Rise House in Çayyolu Frequency
1 Opportunities such as green areas, playgrounds and parking lots 145
2 The environment is quiet and peaceful 132
3 Privacy and comfort due to being a detached house 33
4 The house is large in size 12
5 Prestigious site and better environment 11
6 The environment is clean, nature is unsoiled and full of fresh air 10
7 Better social environment 4
Maintenance costs, on the other hand, appear to be the most important problem
for the households. Moreover, many of them mentioned that transportation is
difficult, while 54% of the households asserted that public transportation is not
adequate. Additionally, some of them find the interior design of the houses
unpractical. Being far from the city center was mentioned for 12 times as a
disadvantage, which can be explained as the households do not consider being far
from the center as a crucial drawback. On the other hand, it is important to
mention that 56 households think that the house does not have a negative side,
which means they are quite satisfied with their houses (Table 6.12).
Table 6. 12: The Two Most Important Disadvantages of the Houses
Ranking Worst Sides of Living in a Low-Rise House in Çayyolu Frequency
1 Maintenance is costly and tiresome 94 2 There is not any negative side 56
3 Transportation is difficult 48
4 Drawbacks of the interior design (stairs, communication difficulties in the house, etc.) 16
5 Far from the city center 12
6 Urban services are inadequate 8
7 Feeling of loneliness and insecurity 6
184
When it is asked if they want to move to another house, only 16 households
mentioned that they want to move. 6 of them asserted that they want to change
only their house while another 6 households mentioned that want to move to
another district (4 households to Çankaya-GOP, 1 household to Çayyolu II and 1
household to Eryaman). Furhermore, 4 households denoted that want to move to
another city. Among these 16 households, who want to move to another house, 5
of them asserted that they will actually move to another house within the
following 6 months time (2 of them will stay within the same district but change
his house, 1 will move to Çayyolu II, 1 will move to Antalya and 1 will move to
Denizli).
Briefly, it can be argued that in spite of the drawbacks such as maintenance costs
and transportation difficulties most of the households are satisfied with their
houses and the urban environment. Actually, 92% of them do not want to move to
another house while 56 households think that their houses do not have any
negative side.
6.5 Review of the Household Questionnaire
To sum up, the survey questions the validity of the previously stated hypotheses
for the residents of low-rise units in Çayyolu. It is important to remind the
hypotheses (the number of hypothesis is given in angular parenthesis) which state
that:
a) Households are expected to be mostly the owners, while the house is
expected to be large in size, having more than three rooms in each unit [3].
b) They are also expected to be professionals and high-status managers with
a good educational background [4].
c) They use private cars in daily commuting in general [5].
185
d) They do not consider living close to the workplace as the prominent factor
of the locational choice of the residences [6].
e) They compensate transport costs and high maintenance costs with
intimacy, prestigious environment and better urban services [7].
f) Housebuilders, on the other hand are expected to be generally the housing
cooperatives for the low-rise residential development while private
sector/speculative housebuilders continue to prefer building high-rise
apartment estates at the fringe [8].
In fact, the outcomes of the questionnaire have highly compatible results with
these hypotheses, which can be explained in sequence as follows:
a) Ownership is quite prevalent among the households (89%), and the houses
are large and roomy. In fact, nearly half of the units’ floor areas are greater
than 80 m2. Since the houses are 2-storied (except for the roof and the
basement floor), the size of each unit tend to be quite large. Moreover, it is
important to mention that in 175 houses, there are more than 3 rooms [3].
b) Here, there is a slight deviation from hypothesis due to the high proportion
of retired households. But the statement is valid for the working
population since most of the household heads are working as scientific,
technical and professional staff (23%) or as administrative and managerial
staff (18%). The rate of retired (39%) or not working (23%) spouses are
quite high, either. However, most of the employed ones work as scientific,
technical and professional staff (12%).
Although working population is lower than expected, households’
educational backgrounds are compatible with the hypothesis, since the
76% of household heads and 64% of spouses have a university degree
186
(undergraduate), while 15% of the household heads and 7% of the spouses
have a graduate degree. [4]
c) Private car ownership is significantly high, since 92% of the households
have at least one car. The use of private car in daily commuting is also
quite prevalent since most of the household heads (79%) and spouses
(75%) use their private cars in daily commuting. [5]
d) Households mentioned the factors that motivate them to move to their
houses in Çayyolu. It is obvious that they considered ‘the size of the
house’, ‘environmental quality’ and ‘the opportunities such as green areas,
playgrounds and parking lots’ primarily when making their residential
decision. ‘Being closer to the workplace’ is ranked as the 12th important
item, since only 4 households mentioned it as one of the most important
factor. However, it is crucial to remind that the high percentage of retired
population may contribute to such a result. [6]
e) Households are asked to indicate the best and the worst sides of their
houses. Actually, they think that ‘opportunities such as green areas,
playgrounds and parking lots’ as well as ‘environmental quality’ and
‘privacy’ are the advantages of their living environment. On the other hand
most of them find the maintenance of the unit expensive and tiresome.
Moreover, some of them think that transportation is difficult and public
transportation is inadequate.
Nevertheless, after considering all the advantages and disadvantages, only
16 households mentioned that they have a desire to move to another house
In other words, 180 households are satisfied with their residences. Indeed,
56 of them mentioned that there is not any negative side of their house.
Therefore, it can be argued that households’ residential satisfaction is quite
high and they trade off transport costs and high maintenance costs for
intimacy, prestigious environment and better urban services. [7]
187
f) Half of the households acquired the houses by means of housing
cooperatives while nearly one forth of them bought the unit from the
previous owner. When the tenants (11%) are omitted, the share of housing
cooperatives increases to 54%, confirming the domination of housing
cooperatives in the area. [8]
Apart from these, other findings of the questionnaire are also worth mentioning.
First, most of the households (89%) were living in apartment dwellings before.
Previous housing units were mostly located at the center (Çankaya-Kızılay) or on
south-eastern part (Çankaya-Dikmen-GOP) of the city. Second, their workplaces
are generally located at the center or on the south-eastern part of the city. Third,
the schools of children are located within Çayyolu, or close neighborhoods.
Therefore, it can be concluded that the households have a strong connection with
the center and the southern part of the city.
In conclusion, it can be argued that the facts support the validity of the hypotheses
in general. Households who were questioned in the survey have some common
characteristics and attitudes which can be considered as the representative of the
households living in low-rise houses at the urban fringe.
188
CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSION
Low-rise housing development in Ankara is a special issue which has economic,
social, political and spatial aspects. In that sense, theoretical frameworks with
respect to urban economics and historical process of the suburbanization
movement and urban development in Turkey considering local, socio-economic
and political structure are explained in order to constitute a theoretical as well as
an informative background for the issue. Then, urban fringe of Ankara,
particularly south-western and southern parts, are focused on since these areas
cover considerable amounts of low-rise housing developments.
Initially, theoretical framework of low-rise housing development at the urban
fringe is discussed, and spatial housing is explained through an urban economic
approach. At that point, urban land use theories are stated, which provide a better
understanding to the distribution of different sectors – particularly housing –, on
urban land, since the theories suggest decreasing land prices with increasing
distance from the center, and reveal the economic rationality of households and
housebuilders.
Households, as the demand side of the housing sector, are expected to allocate
their incomes among housing and all other goods and services. Moreover, location
of the housing unit directly affects residential decisions of households, since
moving further from the city center increases transport costs which lead to a
decrease in the households’ net incomes. As well as the economic matters, they
pay attention to the urban environmental quality, availability of urban services and
the structural attributes of housing units.
189
Households who live in the centrally located neighborhoods used to consume less
housing and suffer from the negative sides of the city center such as congestion,
pollution and crime. However, they spend less for the transport costs and they live
close to social and cultural amenities. On the other hand, those who live at the
urban fringe used to consume more housing and enjoy the positive sides of being
far from the city center such as unsoiled nature, better urban environment,
quietness and peace. Nevertheless they have to endure transport costs both in
monetary and time senses. Therefore, households try to find an optimum location
which maximizes their residential satisfaction while minimizing the negative sides
of living far from the city center.
Housebuilders, as the supply side of the housing sector, use the optimum
composition of capital and land in housing production in order to maximize their
profits. To be economically rational and make more profit, they use less land and
produce more dwelling units (i.e. high capital/land ratio) at the city center where
the land prices are high. For that reason, there is a high-density urban pattern with
high-rise blocks built on single plots at the central places. On the other hand, land
prices decrease with increasing distance from the center and land becomes
cheaper and more abundant in amount at the outskirts. Accordingly, housebuilders
use low capital/land ratios and it becomes economically feasible for them to build
low-density, low-rise residential areas at the urban fringe.
It is obvious that economic considerations of both sides –households and
housebuilders– affect housing development. With respect to this, low-rise houses
are usually located at the peripheral areas and these units provide some
advantages such as spaciousness, privacy and better urban environment, as well as
some disadvantages such as monetary and time costs of transportation for the
users.
In addition to the urban economic framework, historical context is important
while discussing low-rise housing. In fact, low-rise housing development at the
urban fringe is highly related to the suburbanization movement in developed
190
countries which emerged as a reaction to the negative outcomes of
industrialization. Households, first high-income then middle-income groups,
moved from the densely congested urban core to the new residential areas
covering low-density, low-rise housing units at the urban fringe. Decentralization
of other uses like retail and industry contributed to the process and suburbs
became urbanized areas, eventually. It is worth mentioning that, increased
networking due to the globalization created a symbiotic system of city and
suburbs while regional urbanism came into prominence in recent years.
Turkish cities experienced a rather different urbanization process when compared
to the developed countries. Turkey experienced industrialization fairly late while
the drawbacks of industrialization on urban land hit Turkish cities about 50 years
later. Mass migration movement from rural to urban areas was one of these
problems. In fact housing supply was limited in amount and the existing stock was
inadequate to meet the increasing demand. Due to the limited number of units,
price of housing increased and newcomers could not be able to afford housing
from the existing stock. As a result, they started to occupy squatter housing areas,
namely gecekondu, at the periphery which resulted in various urban problems
such as increasing urban densities and inadequate urban services.
Meanwhile government took some regulatory measures in order to overcome
these problems and to cope with the unauthorized developments. The most
important ones, affecting the urban development were the Amnesty Laws and the
Mass Housing Laws. Amnesty Laws, aimed to regularize and upgrade the existing
gecekondus, clear the ramshackle shanties and prevent new gecekondu
developments, but caused further increases in urban densities. Especially after the
1980s, low-rise gecekondus were replaced by apartment buildings, which created
more problems rather than solving it. Mass Housing Laws, the other important
regulatory attempt, encouraged urban decentralization in terms of mass housing
projects. The initial authorized low-rise housing developments were realized by
means of mass housing projects mainly carried out by housing cooperatives. On
the other hand it is important to mention that not only low-rise houses but also
191
high-rise blocks were produced at the outskirts. This is a characteristic of housing
development at the urban fringe that it covers both low-rise houses and multi-
storey apartments together no matter how far it is from the center.
When Ankara case is focused on, it is worth mentioning that the city, as a result of
being proclaimed as the capital in 1923, has a unique place in the urbanization
history of Turkey in terms of being considered to be the model for the other cities
on behalf of creating a modern country. For that reason, Ankara experienced
various planning attempts from the early phases of the Republic. However,
population increase due to the rural to urban migration, populist policies and
economic instability prevented the city to develop in a fully planned way.
Beginning from the 1940s, migrants started to occupy the periphery particularly
the northern and eastern parts of the historical center, Ulus. The city was jammed
in a highly-densed urban core, encircled by the unauthorized housing areas. With
the introduction of the Condominium Law in 1965 urban densities started to
increase within the city, in authorized stock, since the low-rise houses were
replaced by the apartments. Eventually, Ankara started to suffer from congestion,
air pollution and inadequate urban services because of the increasing urban
densities.
Urban decentralization movement, initiated by the Ankara Metropolitan Planning
Bureau, aimed to relieve the congestion at the city center. In order to realize the
residential decentralization, mass housing projects were suggested at the urban
fringe with regard to the Structure Plan developed by the Bureau. Numerous
projects were undertaken by housing cooperatives, such as Batıkent and Çayyolu
projects, and Ankara started to expand through the north-western and the south-
western corridors. No matter how far it is from the city center, apartments were
produced as well as low-rise houses. Nevertheless, floor area ratios tended to be
lower at the outskirts when compared to the centrally located neighborhoods.
192
From the second half of the 1980s, low-rise housing production gained
importance at the south-western corridor (along the Eskişehir Highway) and on
the southern part of the city (in Gölbaşı). South-western part of the city,
particularly Çayyolu, experienced a comprehensive residential development
covering low-rise housing units as well as high-rise apartments. In Gölbaşı, on the
other hand, residential developments have been in terms of low-rise houses only
(except for the existing Gölbaşı village) with regard to the development
regulations entailed by the Natural Preservation Plan decisions.
Most of the low-rise houses are produced by means of housing cooperatives while
private housebuilders prefer to build high-rise blocks, generally. This should be
related to low acquisition price of land by housing cooperatives, either through a
public institution or purchasing land beyond the boundaries of planned areas, and
subsequently obtaining planning permits. It appears that firms are less interested
in the latter form of land acquisition and development, as it would be a risky
venture that may take a long time. Moreover, in some areas such as İLKO
Konutları, the housing cooperative provided land and the architectural projects of
the units, and then households build the houses individually or get them built by
hiring construction workers.
Housing developments along the south-western and southern parts of the city are
consistent with the urban land use theories due to having relatively lower-
densities when compared to the centrally located neighborhoods. In fact average
FARs, which are ranging between 3.50 and 4.50 at the center, decrease to 1-1.50
in Çayyolu and 0.50 in Yenikent Bahçelievler and in Gölbaşı. Such a layout
demonstrates decreasing FARs from the center to the peripheral areas as explained
in the urban economic approaches.
Certainly, households who prefer to live in low-rise houses far from the city
center enjoy the advantages of being away from the congestion, pollution and
inadequate urban services. On the other hand, they have to afford transport costs
and maintenance costs of their houses. Therefore, it is obvious that they are
193
subject to certain trade-offs; for instance, they have to compensate the transport
costs in both monetary and time senses with larger houses, privacy and livable
urban environment.
In order to figure out to what extend households living in low-rise houses far from
the city center in Ankara comply with the trade-off theories, a household
questionnaire was carried out in Çayyolu. In this survey, 196 households were
selected randomly from 20 housing estates (covering low-rise houses only) and
particular questions were asked to test the validity of previously mentioned
hypotheses.
The hypotheses state that households are expected to be the owners in general.
They are also supposed to be professionals and high-status managers with good
educational backgrounds. Moreover, the use of private car in commuting is
expected to be high. Being close to workplaces is not expected to be the
prominent factor affecting the locational choices of their residences. They are
supposed to trade off the transport costs and high maintenance costs for larger
houses, intimacy and better urban services. Apart from these, housebuilders of the
low-rise housing areas are expected to be generally housing cooperatives.
The findings of the questionnaire survey reveal that most of the households (89%)
were living in apartment dwellings before moving to their low-rise houses. The
locations of the previous housing units were mostly on the south-eastern part of
the city (Çankaya_GOP) and at the central places (Kızılay-Bahçelievler).
However, those who were living on the northern part of the city remain quite low
(14%). Furthermore, owners (89%) are far more than tenants (11%).
Almost forty percent of the households are retired, and this can partly be
explained by having an opportunity to own a house at older ages, particularly by
retirement, and those who do not need to commute would likely prefer to live far
from the city center. Such a high rate of retired and non-commuting population
194
among the residents of low-rise housing appears to be a special case to Ankara,
which has not been reported in other countries in the literature.
Working individuals, on the other hand, are professionals and managers in
general. Workplaces of households are generally located at the CBD (Kızılay) and
on the south-eastern part of the city (Çankaya-GOP). Only 7% of the household
heads and 4% of the spouses are working on the northern part of Ankara. In
addition to these, education levels are considerably high since nearly 90% of the
household heads are 70% of the spouses are university graduates. 92% of the
households have at least one private car and the use of private car in commuting is
significantly high, as well.
Households do not think that ‘being close to workplace’ is as important as ‘the
size of the house’, ‘environmental quality’ and ‘the opportunities offered by their
housing estates such as green areas, playgrounds and parking lots’, since it was
ranked as the 12th item of the most important motivations that affect their
locational choice of residences. It is crucial to remind that this may be related to
the high percentage of retired households, and could be an indication of relatively
lower levels of disutility of commuting by car in Ankara, although congestion is
becoming a serious problem recently along the Eskişehir Highway connecting
Çayyolu District to the city center.
Although many households find the maintenance costs expensive and tiresome,
and transportation difficult, they seem to be quite satisfied with their houses since
92% of them do not want to move to another house. Actually they appreciate the
environmental quality and privacy as well as the roominess of their houses, and
they compensate the negative sides of living in low-rise houses away from the city
center with such advantages provided by their houses and the urban environment.
More than half of the households acquired their houses by means of housing
cooperatives, and nearly one-forth of them bought their houses from the previous
195
owners. Eventually, the findings confirm the domination of housing cooperatives
over the other housebuilders in low-rise housing production at the outskirts.
Obviously, the findings are highly compatible with the before-mentioned
hypotheses and quite explanatory to portray the characteristics of the households,
the reasons that motivate them to live in low-rise houses which are relatively far
from the center and whether they are satisfied with their residences.
Therefore, it can be argued that low-rise housing development in Ankara has
certain characteristics. Low-rise residential areas are quite prevalent on the south-
western part (particularly in Çayyolu) and on the southern part of the city
(Gölbaşı) and urban densities are lower in those areas when compared to the
centrally located neighborhoods. Households who prefer to live in the low-rise
houses at the outskirts trade off the transport costs and high maintenance costs of
the housing units for larger houses, livable urban environment and better urban
services. Moreover, the findings indicate that spatial patterns of housing
development and consumption that are observed in the cities of developed
countries and being theorized in the second chapter of this study are also taking
place in the south-western part of Ankara.
Finally it is important to mention that this study provides a basis for the further
studies. Housing developments in study areas can be discussed with respect to
their inner characteristics as well as their relationship with the whole city. In that
sense, it can be argued whether they have formed a neighborhood pattern with
distinctive ways of life and to what extent they have integrated to the city in
economic, physical or social senses.
From the economic point of view, the costs of low-rise and low-density
developments at the urban fringe to the whole city can be questioned. Considering
the spatial aspects, the urban development pattern created by these residential
areas can be discussed. From the social point of view, the form of social sphere
created in these areas can be argued and it can be asked if such developments lead
196
to a kind of social fragmentation. In addition to these, it is important to mention
that the study carried out along the south-western development corridor of Ankara
is characterized by being the residential area of moderate to upper income groups.
In order to reach to a more comprehensive conclusion, similar studies have to be
undertaken in other parts of the city, most notably in Batıkent, which covers a
substantial low-rise housing stock. Such a comprehensive study covering low-rise
houses in many parts of Ankara can provide an explanatory framework to the
relationship between the choice and living conditions of low-rise housing and the
social characteristics of the population.
197
REFERENCES
1. (1986) 1984 Census of Buildings State Institute of Statistics Prime
Ministry Republic of Turkey, SIS, Ankara
2. (2001) Building Census 2000, State Institute of Statistics Prime Ministry
Republic of Turkey, SIS, Ankara
3. (2004) Turkish Housing Survey 1999, State Institute of Statistics Prime
Ministry Republic of Turkey, SIS, Ankara
4. (2005) Türkiye’de Dünya Bankası, 1993-2004 Ülke Yardım
Değerlendirmesi Raporu, Bağımsız Değerlendirme Grubu
5. (2005) Türkkonut 1985’ten 2005’e: 20. Yılında Türkiye S.S. Yapı
Kooperatifleri Merkez Birliği, Türkkonut Yayınları, Ankara
6. Alkan, F. (1999) A Study on the Social Environmental Analysis of the
Qualitative Values in Mass Housing Areas in Suburbs: A Case Study in
Ankara-Eryaman, unpublished MS thesis, METU
7. Alonso, W. (1964) Location and Land Use; toward a general theory of
land, Harvard University Press, Cambridge
8. Altaban, Ö. (1986) “Ankara Kentsel Alanının Doğal Çevreye Yayılımı
(1923-1985)” in Ankara 1985’den 2015’e, 7-15, Ankara Büyükşehir
Belediyesi
9. Altaban, Ö. (1996) Toplu Konut Alanlarında Örgütlenme ve İşletme,
Toplu Konut İdaresi Başkanlığı, Ankara
198
10. Aras, A. (1996) Issues and Management of Urban Residential Land
Development: Three case studies from Ankara, Turkey, unpublished MS
thesis, METU
11. Babalık, E. (1996) Urban Transportation Policies in Ankara with Special
Emphasis on the Issue of Car Ownership and Car Use, unpublished MS
thesis, METU
12. Bademli, R. (1986) “Ankara’da Kent Planlama Deneyi ve Ulaşılan
Sonuçlar” in Ankara 1985’den 2015’e, 105-114, Ankara Büyükşehir
Belediyesi
13. Balchin, P. (1995) Housing Policy 3rd ed. , Routledge, London, New York
14. Baycan Levent, T., Gülümser, A., A. (2004) “Production and Marketing of
Gated Communities in İstanbul”, paper presented in the 44th European
Congress of the European Regional Science Association Regions and
Fiscal Federalism, 25-29 August, Porto Portugal
15. Beauregard, R., A. (1993) Voices of Decline: The postwar fate of US
Cities, Blackwell, Oxford UK and Cambridge USA
16. Bentivegna, V. (1985) “Theory of Urban Rent and the Working-class
Movement: the Case of Italy” in Land Rent, Housing and Urban Planning:
A European Perspective, eds. Ball, M., Bentivegna, V., Edwards, M.,
Folin, M, 191-202. Croom Helm, London, Sydney, Dover
17. Berkman, G., Osmay, S. (1996) 1984 Sonrası Konut Kooperatifçiliği,
Toplu Konut İdaresi Başkanlığı, Ankara
18. Birgül, A., Şahin, N. (1984) “Batıkent (Ankara)” in Türkiye’den Toplu
Konut Örnekleri, İzmir Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Öğrenci Çalışmaları
199
1982/83 Öğretim Yılı, ed. Sümer Güzel, 81-107, Batıkent Konut Üretim
Yapı Kooperatifleri Birliği, Özgün Matbaacılık, Ankara
19. Capello, R., Camagni, R. (2000) “Sub-centering and Commuting:
Evidence from the San Francisco Bay Area, 1980-90”, Urban Studies,
Vol.37, Issue 9, 1479-1496
20. Carmona, M. (2001) Housing Design Quality: through policy, guidance
and review, Spon Press, London, New York
21. Carmona, M., Carmona, S., Gallent, N. (2003) Delivering New Homes:
Processes, planners and providers, Routledge, London and New York
22. Cervero, R., Wu, K. (1998) “Sub-centering and Commuting: Evidence
from the San Francisco Bay Area, 1980-90”, Urban Studies, Vol.35, Issue
7, 1059-1076
23. Çanga, A. (2002) “2000-2010 Dönemi Konut İhtiyacı Analizleri ve Konut
Politikaları” in Konut Kurultayı, 22-23-24 Mayıs 2002, Yıldız Teknik
Üniversitesi, 50-57, Umut Matbaacılık, İstanbul
24. Danış, A., D. (2001) Suburbanization and a Suburban Community in
Turkey: the Case of Bahçeşehir, unpublished MS thesis, METU
25. DiPasquale, D. Wheaton, W., C. (1996) Urban Economics and Real Estate
Markets, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey
26. Gillham, O. (2002) The Limitless City: A Premier on the Urban Sprawl
Debate, Island Press, Washington, Covelo, London
200
27. Goffette-Nagot, F. (2000) “Urban Spread Beyond the City Edge” in
Economics of Cities: Theoretical Perspectives, eds. Jean-Marie Huriot and
Jacques-François Thisse, 318-340, Cambridge University Press, UK
28. Gottiener, M. (1985) The Social Production of Urban Space, University of
Texas Press, Austin
29. Günay, B. (2005) “Ankara Çekirdek Alanının Oluşumu ve 1990 Nazım
Planı Hakkında Bir Değerlendirme” in ‘Cumhuriyet’in ‘Ankara’sı, ed.
Tansı Şenyapılı, 60-118, ODTÜ Yayıncılık, Ankara
30. Hansen, N., M. (1975) The Challenge of Urban Growth; the basic
economics of city size and structure, Lexington Books, Lexington
31. Jackson, K. T. (1985) Crabgrass Frontier: the Suburbanization of the
United States, Oxford University Press, New York
32. Jäger, J. (2003) “Urban Land Rent Theory: A Regulationist Perspective”,
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Volume 27.2, 233-
249
33. Keleş, R. (2000) Kentleşme Politikası, İmge Kitabevi, Ankara
34. Koparal, E. (1984) “Or-An (Ankara)” in Türkiye’den Toplu Konut
Örnekleri, İzmir Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Öğrenci Çalışmaları 1982/83
Öğretim Yılı, ed. Sümer Güzel, 30-50, Batıkent Konut Üretim Yapı
Kooperatifleri Birliği, Özgün Matbaacılık, Ankara
35. Maclennan, D. (1997) “The UK Housing Market: Up, Down and Where
Next?” in Directions in Housing Policy: Towards sustainable housing
policies for the UK, ed. Peter Williams, 21-53, Paul Chapman Publishing,
London
201
36. Mayo, S., K. (1981) “Theory and Estimation in the Economics of Housing
Demand”, Journal of Urban Economics Vol. 10, 95-116
37. Mills, E., S. (1972) Urban Economics, Scott Foresman and Company,
Illinois
38. Mills, E., S., Hamilton, B., W, (1993) Urban Economics 5th edition,
Addison-Wesley, California
39. Moudon, A., V., Hess, P., M. (2000) “Suburban Clusters: Nucleation of
Multifamily Housing in Suburban Areas of the Central Puget Sound”,
APA Journal, Vol.66, No.3
40. Mumford, L. (1961) The City in History: its origins, its transformation,
and its prospects, Penguin Books, England
41. Muth, R., F. (1975) Urban Economic Problems, Harper and Row, New
York
42. Needham, B. (1998) “The Effects of Land Policy: Quantity as well as
Quality is Important”, Urban Studies, Vol.35, Issue 1, 25-44
43. Orlebeke, C., J. (2002) “Housing Policy and the Urban Sprawl in the
Chicago Metropolitan Region” in Suburban Sprawl: Private Decisions
and Public Policy, eds. Wim Wiewel and Joseph J. Persky, 157-181, M. E.
Sharpe, New York, London
44. O’Sullivan, A. (2003) Urban Economics 5th edition, McGraw-Hill/Irwin,
New York
45. Özüekren, Ş., Yirmibeşoğlu, F. (2002) “Konut Alanlarının geliştirilmesi
ve Sürdürülebilmesinde Kamu-Özel Ortaklıkları” in Konut Kurultayı, 22-
202
23-24 Mayıs 2002, Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi, 95-106, Umut Matbaacılık,
İstanbul
46. Palen, J., J. (1995) The Suburbs, McGraw Hill, New York
47. Phe, H., H., Wakely, P. (2000) “Status, Quality and the Other Trade-off:
Towards a new theory of urban residential location”, Urban Studies,
Vol.37, Issue 1, 7-35.
48. Popenoe, D. (1977) The Suburban Environment, The University of
Chicago Press, Chicago and London
49. Rappaport, J. (2005) “The Shared Fortunes of Cities and Suburbs”,
Economic Review, Vol.90, Issue 3, 33-60
50. Richardson, H. W. (1977) The New Urban Economics and Alternatives,
Pion Limited, London
51. Richardson, H., W. (1978) Regional and Urban Economics, England,
Penguin Books Ltd.
52. Robinson, R., V., F. (1979) Housing Economics and Public Policy,
MacMillan, London
53. Rowe, P. G. (1991) Making a Middle Landscape, MIT Press, Cambridge,
Massachusetts
54. Sandercock, L. (1998) Towards Cosmopolis: planning for multicultural
cities, J. Wiley, England and New York
203
55. Short, J., R., Fleming, S., Witt, S., J., G. (1986) Housebuilding, planning,
and community action: the production and negotiation of the built
environment, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, Boston
56. Soja, E., W. (2000) Postmetropolis: Critical Studies of Cities and Regions,
Blackwell Publishing, MA USA, Oxford UK, Australia
57. Stanback, T. M. (1991) The New Suburbanization: Challenge to the
Central City, Westview Press, San Francisco, Oxford
58. Stanback, T. M., Knight, R., V. (1976) Suburbanization and the City,
Allanheld, Osmun & Co., Montclair, NJ
59. Şenyapılı, T. (1996) “Ankara Kentinde Gecekondu Oluşum Süreci” in
Ankara’da Gecekondu Oluşum Süreci ve Ruhsatlı Konut Sunumu, eds.
Tansı Şenyapılı and Ali Türel, 1-55, Batıbirlik Yayınları, Ankara
60. Şenyapılı, T. (2004) “Baraka”dan Gecekonduya, Ankara’da Kentsel
Mekanın Dönüşümü: 1923-1960, İletişim Yayınları, Ankara
61. Tankut, G. (2000) “Jansen Planı: Uygulama Sorunları ve Cumhuriyet
Bürokrasisinin Kent Planlama Yaklaşımı” in Tarih İçinde Ankara 2nd
edition, ed. Ayşe Tükel Yavuz, 301-306, TBMM Basımevi, Ankara
62. Tekeli, İ. (1982) “Türkiye’de Konut Sunumunun Davranışsal Nitelikleri ve
Konut Kesiminde Bunalım” in Konut 81, 57-101, Kent-Koop. Batıkent
Konut Üretim Yapı Kooperatifleri Birliği, Ankara
63. Tekeli İ., Okyay, T. (1982) “Case Study of a Relocated Capital: Ankara”
in Urban Planning Practice in Developing Countries, eds. John L. Taylor
and David G. Williams, 123-142, Pergamon Press, Oxford, New York
204
64. Tekeli, İ., İlkin, S. (1984) Bahçeli Evlerin Öyküsü: Bir Batı Kurumunun
Yeniden Yorumlanması, Kent-Koop. Batıkent Konut Üretim Yapı
Kooperatifleri Birliği, Ankara
65. Tekeli, İ., Güvenç, M. (1986) “Ankara Nüfusundaki Gelişmeler ve Nüfus
Bileşenlerinin etkileri” in Ankara 1985’den 2015’e, 16-24, Ankara
Büyükşehir Belediyesi
66. Tekeli, İ. (2000) “Ankara’nın Başkentlik Kararının Ülkesel Mekan Mekan
Organizasyonu ve Toplumsal Yapıya Etkileri Bakımından Genel Bir
Değerlendirmesi” in Tarih İçinde Ankara 2nd edition, ed. Ayşe Tükel
Yavuz, 317-335, TBMM Basımevi, Ankara
67. Tekeli, İ. (2001) Modernite Aşılırken Kent Planlaması, İmge Kitapevi,
Ankara
68. Topçu, M. (2004) Spatial Variation of Apartment Housing in Ankara,
unpublished MS thesis, METU
69. Türel, A. (1981) “Ankara’da Konut Fiyatlarının Mekansal Farklılaşması”,
ODTÜ Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 7:1, 97-109
70. Türel, A. (1982) “Ankara’da Konut Pazarı Analizi” in Türkiye Birinci
Şehircilik Kongresi, 1. Kitap, ed. Yiğit Gülöksüz, ODTÜ, Şehir ve Bölge
Planlama Bölümü, Ankara
71. Türel, A. (1986) “Ankara’da Konut Yapım Süreçleri” in Ankara 1985’den
2015’e, 55-64, Ankara Büyük Şehir Belediyesi
72. Türel, A. (1989) “1980 Sonrasında Konut Üretimindeki Gelişmeler”,
ODTÜ Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 9:1,137-154
205
73. Türel, A. (1994) “Housing Finance in Turkey During the Last Decade” in
European Housing Finance: single market or mosaic, eds. Will Bartlett
and Glen Bramley, 199-215, SAUS, Bristol
74. Türel, A. (1996) “Ankara’da Ruhsatlı Konut Sunumu” in Ankara’da
Gecekondu Oluşum Süreci ve Ruhsatlı Konut Sunumu, eds. Tansı
Şenyapılı and Ali Türel, 57-95, Batıbirlik Yayınları, Ankara
75. White, M., Allmendinger, P. (2003) Land-use Planning and Housing
Market: A Comparative Review of the UK and the USA”, Urban Studies,
Vol.40, Issue 5-6, 953-972.
206
APPENDIX A
Construction and Occupation Permits in the 1990-2005 period in Ankara
YAPI RUHSATI
1990 1991 1992 Ev Apartman Ev Apartman Ev Apartman
Altındağ 71 760 2 555 789 607 Çankaya 19 6675 162 6 788 70 6 525 Etimesgut --- 2 900 71 4 709 Gölbaşı 17 53 26 133 Keçiören 9 4915 9 4 746 6 5 234 Mamak 3 1072 7 1 085 --- 1 295 Sincan 987 2407 79 3 162 677 15 856 Yenimahalle 698 9599 88 3 154 159 3 906 1993 1994 1995 Ev Apartman Ev Apartman Ev Apartman Altındağ 1 744 1 684 --- 642
Çankaya 48 9 249 70 7 197
174 8 371
Etimesgut 4 4 919
212 8 260 57 3 025
Gölbaşı 29 520 68 680
176 521 Keçiören 40 6 243 7 5 744 12 5 080 Mamak 33 2 037 --- 2 657 2 2 966
Sincan 367 17 090
349 10 475
123 7 344
Yenimahalle 99 4 498 57 4 793 47 4 086 1996 1997 1998 Ev Apartman Ev Apartman Ev Apartman Altındağ --- 648 1 607 62 872
Çankaya 983 7 554 228 6 602 128 5 052
Etimesgut 2 1 664 94 3 455 60 6 280
Gölbaşı 469 419 153 449 467 437
Keçiören 9 4 353 10 3 979 2 4 918 Mamak 2 3 094 3 2 174 164 2 320 Sincan 11 3 092 16 2 680 10 2 410 Yenimahalle 55 2 587 344 3 782 93 3 419
207
1999 2000 2001 Ev Apartman Ev Apartman Ev Apartman Altındağ 115 1 017 3 1 741 2 1 936
Çankaya 145 5 022
156 7 520 75 8 034
Etimesgut 232 6 777
364 9 872
395 6 212
Gölbaşı 619 1 184
173 1 244 65 729 Keçiören 18 6 904 16 7 448 10 9 196 Mamak 4 3 790 3 4 588 2 6 943 Sincan 9 3 528 34 3 314 26 3 625
Yenimahalle 567 7 030
194 3 924
216 7 396 2002 2003 2004 Ev Apartman Ev Apartman Ev Apartman Altındağ - 793 3 1 205 1 1951
Çankaya 112 6 328 96 10 028 96 8105
Etimesgut 97 1 722 91 2 174 161 7868
Gölbaşı 71 316
146 583 148 790 Keçiören 4 7 171 5 9 923 7 11552 Mamak 2 4 879 - 5 748 8477 Sincan 4 1 970 3 2 093 5 3646
Yenimahalle 215 2 886
588 2 884 352 5294
2005 Ev Apartman Altındağ 913 Çankaya 74 5121 Etimesgut 101 2559 Gölbaşı 109 702 Keçiören 8 5868 Mamak 2 2280 Sincan 7 3844 Yenimahalle 390 2171
208
YAPI KULLANMA İZİN BELGESİ 1990 1991 1992
Ev Apartman Ev Apartman Ev Apartman Altındağ 634 --- 994 2 524
Çankaya 4 6442 3 5 088
262 6 280 Etimesgut 1 515 --- 828 Gölbaşı 1 --- 1 --- Keçiören 1 5223 1 4 742 6 4 016 Mamak 938 1 920 --- 837 Sincan 34 2130 74 2 521 58 3 257
Yenimahalle 1056 7841 125 2 543
419 5 455 1993 1994 1995 Ev Apartman Ev Apartman Ev Apartman Altındağ --- 767 --- 723 --- 482 Çankaya 375 6 527 37 4 876 18 4 280
Etimesgut --- 4 735 1 462
118 4 999 Gölbaşı 27 134 29 250 12 234 Keçiören 8 4 062 10 3 669 3 5 246 Mamak 254 1 921 11 449 --- 645
Sincan 35 5 195 18 5 545
197 5 692
Yenimahalle 1 844 6 858
2 524 8 475
286 2 483
1996 1997 1998 Ev Apartman Ev Apartman Ev Apartman Altındağ --- 670 114 616 - 657
Çankaya 153 6 118 132 6 684
290 8 216 Etimesgut 118 4 987 2 1 884 - 918
Gölbaşı 89 118 88 156
197 429 Keçiören 1 4 286 --- 4 246 5 3 938 Mamak --- 1 584 --- 1 862 - 1 223 Sincan 26 4 243 22 2 931 20 2 157
Yenimahalle 782 4 391 1 662 5 649
322 4 509
209
1999 2000 2001 Ev Apartman Ev Apartman Ev Apartman Altındağ 2 568 1 829 1 963
Çankaya 46 6 375 38 4 515
386 4 893 Etimesgut 1 1 359 1 3 243 43 6 330 Gölbaşı 92 263 39 436 74 364 Keçiören - 4 051 1 5 465 12 6 228 Mamak - 1 801 1 1 744 - 2 055
Sincan 17 4 480 11 3 688
655 6 575
Yenimahalle 555 3 723 666 5 717
447 4 200 2002 2003 2004 Ev Apartman Ev Apartman Ev Apartman Altındağ 2 933 - 917 102 4183
Çankaya 134 4 029 279 6 427 182 9216
Etimesgut 124 3 361 203 3 497 288 16785
Gölbaşı 182 456 60 509 471 1131
Keçiören 12 5 375 8 5 250 6 15272 Mamak - 1 943 2 1 132 3 12428 Sincan 23 4 940 27 3 257 16 6173
Yenimahalle 256 2 772 426 2 741 884 6764
2005 Ev Apartman Altındağ 2 1769 Çankaya 122 10213 Etimesgut 230 8867 Gölbaşı 79 724 Keçiören 4 9294 Mamak 1 5498 Sincan 13 7998 Yenimahalle 515 4826
210
APPENDIX B A Sample Household Questionnaire S1) [X2]Bu konutta kaç yıldır oturuyorsunuz? 1. ( ) 1 yıldan az bir zamandır
2. ( ) 1-5 yıl 3. ( ) 5-10 yıl 4. ( ) 10-15 yıl 5. ( ) 15 yıldan fazla S2) [X3]Önceki oturduğunuz konut ev miydi, yoksa apartman dairesi mi? 1. ( ) Müstakil ev 2. ( ) Apartman dairesi S3) O (önceki) konutunuz neredeydi? Hangi kent ve hangi semtteydi?
[X4]Kent:................................. [X5]Semt:............................................. S4) Şu anda oturduğunuz bu konutun, toplam oda sayısını, arsasının kaç metrekare olup evin tabanının kaç metrekareye oturduğunu öğrenebilir miyim?
[X6]Oda Sayısı [X7]Taban Alanı (m²) [X8]Arsa Alanı (m²)
....................... ........................... ..........................
S5) [X9]Bu oturduğunuz konut kendinize mi ait kira mı? 1. ( ) Evet Kendimize ait 2. ( ) Hayır kendimize ait değil, Kira
[X10]Aylık kirası ne kadar: .............. YTL Soru 7’ye geç
S6) [X11]Bu konuta nasıl sahip olmuştunuz, kimden almıştınız? 1. ( ) Yapımcıdan satın aldım 2. ( ) Önceki sahibinden satın aldım 3. ( ) Kooperatif yoluyla 4. ( ) Miras 5. ( ) Diğer (lütfen belirtiniz)...............................
Kontrol Değişkeni [X12] S7) [X13]Bu konuta taşınmanızın en önemli 2 nedeni, bu gösterdiğim seçeneklerden hangileridir? 1. ( ) Konutu satın almak 2. ( ) Konutun geniş olması
211
3. ( ) Konutun işyerine daha yakın olması 4. ( ) Konutun çocukların okuluna daha yakın olması 5. ( ) Konutun daha prestijli ve çevre kalitesinin yüksek olması 6. ( ) Konutun ulaşımının daha kolay olması 7. ( ) Önceden oturulan konutta kiranın/fiyatın yüksek, burada ise daha uygun 8. ( ) Park, oyun alanları, otopark gibi olanakların bulunması 9. ( ) Diğer (lütfen belirtiniz)............................... S8) [X14]Hanede siz dahil,toplam kaç kişi yaşıyorsunuz? 1. ( ) 1 kişi 2. ( ) 2 kişi 3. ( ) 3-5 kişi 4. ( ) 6 kişi ya da daha fazla S9) Bu hanenin, aile reisinin ve eşinin eğitim düzeyini öğrenebilir miyim?
[X15]
Aile reisi [X16]
Eşi İlkokul 1. ( ) 1. ( ) Ortaokul 2. ( ) 2. ( ) Lise 3. ( ) 3. ( ) Üniversite 4. ( ) 4. ( ) Lisansüstü 5. ( ) 5. ( )
S10) [X17]Bu haneden, kaç kişi gelir elde etmek üzere bir işte çalışıyor? 1. ( ) Çalışan yok 2. ( ) 1 kişi 3. ( ) 2 kişi 4. ( ) 3 kişi 5. ( ) 4 kişi ve daha fazla kişi S11) Aile reisi ve eşi çalıştıkları işlerde hangi statüyle çalışıyorlar? Ücretli-maaşlı mı, işveren mi, kendi hesabına mı çalışıyorlar?
[X18]
Aile reisi [X19]
Eşi Ücretli veya maaşlı 1. ( ) 1. ( ) İşveren 2. ( ) 2. ( ) Kendi hesabına çalışan 3. ( ) 3. ( ) Ücretsiz aile işçisi 4. ( ) 4. ( ) Diğer (lütfen belirtiniz) ....................... 5. ( ) 5. ( )
212
S12) Aile reisi ve eşinin meslek grubu, aşağıdakilerden hangisine uygundur?
S13) Aile reisinin ve eşinin işyerleri nerede, hangi semtte? Mahalle/Cadde/Sokak Semt
Aile Reisi [X24]............................................ [X25].......................................Eşi [X26]............................................ [X27].......................................
S14) Bu hanede okula gitmeyen ya da ilköğretim okulu, lise, üniversiteye giden çocuk var mı? Varsa kaçar çocuk?
[X21]
Aile reisi [X22]
Eşi Müteşebbis, müdür, üst kademe yönetici (Şirket sahibi, şirket müdürü, müsteşar, genel müdür vb.) 1. ( ) 1. ( )
Profesyonel meslek mensubu (Mühendis, doktor, avukat, mimar, şehir plancısı vb.) 2. ( ) 2. ( )
Memur, idari personel, vb. 3. ( ) 3. ( )
Ticaret ve satış personeli 4. ( ) 4. ( )
Şahsi hizmetlerde çalışan (Otel, lokanta, kuaför, temizlik vb. iş personeli) 5. ( ) 5. ( )
Tarım, hayvancılık, orman, balıkçılık veya avcılık ile ilgili işlerde çalışan 6. ( ) 6. ( )
Fabrika ve diğer kuruluşlarda çalışan işçi 7. ( ) 7. ( )
Zanaatkar 8. ( ) 8. ( )
Emekli 9. ( ) 9. ( )
[X28]
Okumuyor [X29]
İlköğretim [X30] Lise
[X31] Üniversite
Yok 0. ( ) 0. ( ) 0. ( ) 0. ( ) 1 çocuk 1. ( ) 1. ( ) 1. ( ) 1. ( ) 2 çocuk 2. ( ) 2. ( ) 2. ( ) 2. ( ) 3 çocuk 3. ( ) 3. ( ) 3. ( ) 3. ( )
4 ve üzeri çok 4. ( ) 4. ( ) 4. ( ) 4. ( )
213
S15) Çocukların okulları hangi semtlerde?
Semt 1. çocuk [X32]............................. 2. çocuk [X33]............................. 3. çocuk [X34]............................
Section 1.01 Kontrol Değişkeni [X35]
S16) [X36]Buraya yeteri kadar otobüs, dolmuş gibi toplu taşım aracı geliyor mu, var mı? 1. ( ) Evet, yeteri kadar var 2. ( ) Hayır, yeterli değil S17) Aile bireyleri işe/okula nasıl, hangi araçlarla gidip geliyor?
S18) Aile reisi ve eşi işlerine kaç dakika da gidiyorlar, gidebiliyorlar?
[X42] Aile reisi
[X43] Eşi
……………..(dakika) ……………..(dakika) S19) [X44] Bu hane üyelerinden birinin bir kaçının arabası var mı, varsa kaç tane?
1. ( ) Hayır yok, 2. ( ) Evet var. ... [X45]Kaç tane? 1. ( ) Bir tane 2. ( ) İki tane 3. ( ) Daha
fazla S20) [X46] Sizce bu evde oturmanın en iyi yanları neler? (En fazla 2 seçenek işaretleyebilirsiniz)
1. ( ) Mahremiyet 2. ( ) Sessiz ve sakin oluşu 3. ( ) Rahat bir çevrede yaşamak (bahçesinin, otoparkının, çocuk parkının olması vb.) 4. ( ) Prestijli oluşu 5. ( ) Apartman dairesine göre daha geniş olması 6. ( ) Diğer (lütfen belirtiniz)...............................
Özel Araç Otobüs Dolmuş Servis Diğer [X37] Aile reisi 1.( ) 2. ( ) 3. ( ) 4. ( ) 5. ( ) [X38] Eşi 1.( ) 2. ( ) 3. ( ) 4. ( ) 5. ( ) [X39] 1. çocuk 1.( ) 2. ( ) 3. ( ) 4. ( ) 5. ( ) [X40] 2. çocuk 1.( ) 2. ( ) 3. ( ) 4. ( ) 5. ( ) [X41] 3. çocuk 1.( ) 2. ( ) 3. ( ) 4. ( ) 5. ( )
214
S21) [X47]Sizce bu evde oturmanın en kötü yanları neler? (En fazla 2 seçenek işaretleyebilirsiniz) 1. ( ) Masraflı oluşu 2. ( ) Yalnızlık ve güvensizlik duygusu vermesi 3. ( ) Hizmetlerin (çöp toplama, içme suyu temini, posta hizmetleri vb.) yetersiz oluşu 4. ( ) Ulaşımın zor oluşu 5. ( ) Diğer (lütfen belirtiniz)............................... S22) [X48]Buradan taşınmak istiyor musunuz, istiyorsanız nereye?
1. ( ) Hayır taşınmak istemiyoruz 2. ( ) Evet taşınmak istiyoruz? ....[X49]Nereye Taşınmak istiyorsunuz?
1. ( ) Aynı semtte bir başka eve, 2. ( ) Bir başka semte .. [X50]Hangi semt?................................... 3. ( ) Bir başka kente [X51]Hangi kent? ...................................
Kontrol Değişkeni [X52]
Section 1.02 S23) [X53]Önümüzdeki 6 ay içinde bu evden taşınmanız gibi bir olasılık var mı?
1. ( ) Hayır böyle bir şey yok 2. ( ) Evet taşınmak istiyoruz? .. SORUNUZ... [X54]Nereye Taşınmak istiyorsunuz?
1. ( ) Aynı semtte bir başka eve, 2. ( ) Bir başka semte .. [X55]Hangi
semt?.................................. 3. ( ) Bir başka kente [X56]Hangi kent?
................................. S24) [X57]Eğer sakıncası yoksa, bu haneye giren aylık ortalama geliri öğrenebilir miyim? Bu haneye giren aylık gelir karttaki hangi gruba girer? 1. ( ) 1.000 YTL’ye kadar 2. ( ) 1.000-2.000 YTL 3. ( ) 2.000-3.000 YTL 4. ( ) 3.000-4.000 YTL 5. ( ) 4.000-5.000 YTL 6. ( ) 5.000-6.000 YTL 7. ( ) 6.000-7.000 YTL 8. ( ) 7.000-8.000 YTL 9. ( ) 8.000-9.000 YTL 10.( ) 9.000 YTL ve üzeri
215
Görüşülen kişinin; Adı Soyadı: ……………………………………. Telefonu: …………………………………. Adresi: İlçesi:………….....Mahallesi: ……....….……Site adı: ……............……Daire no:……….